Friday, October 07, 2005

Take a walk

My little daughter Najma wrote a post today, I found it very interesting and deserve reading, As I have no new post, I just published a copy of it here.

"It was meant to be a joke, but it makes sense:

"Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes."

"Try and put yourself in their shoes".. I've been told to do so with American soldiers, over and over, and I did. It didn't give me a justification for what they did, do or have done.

You might have noticed that many incidents are caused by American soldiers, on this blog, for that, many people have turned against them in Iraq.. Latest: Mom is crossing the street in front of the university, the police start shooting too close, mom gets scared and screams.. After calming down, she looks around to see if one of her students is there and saw her.. None was there, she is relieved, she goes on..

Now, try to put yourself in her shoes! Hard? Try this:

A cousin, her children and her husband are in the car, they hear some shots and so the American soldiers go crazy and start shooting randomly.. A bullet then got really close and tore her hijab but didn't injure her..

Easy? No..

I'm sure it isn't easy.. It isn't easy for dad to come up and check if I'm alive, it's not easy for mom to call my sister every while to check if she's Okay.. Everytime a name is mentioned, the first things that comes to mind is : Is he/she shot?

For that I tell you, no one at all has the right to tell me how my country is now, unless that someone is IN Iraq, and knows how it is.. Otherwise, the most idea you have of the situation, is way less than what really is going on.

Just walk a mile in my shoes, if you finish that alive, then and only then, come and tell me what you think..

"Could you devote a post to civilian Iraqis who have been killed by insurgents, if any. And do these insurgents offer help in the same manner of the Americans who send wounded Iraqis to base hospitals and to hospitals in other countries. Do these insurgents offer help in the way of rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure like schools, hospitals, oil refineries, etc. We don't hear of this because of the Bush controlled media."

For God's sake, I have a brain.. Insurgents are not helping. But who are the insurgents? Killing Iraqis, destroying homes, kidnapping people.. Their only aim is to terrorize.But, for that person, who goes out to kill the occupier, I say it now clearly: I'm with the Mujahid.. And if you have a problem with it, well, imagine your country being torn the way mine is, and see if you allow that.And I invite you to come and see how hospitals in Iraq are now.. An open invitation, not recommended for weak-hearted people though! See the reconstruction in Iraq, I doubt you'll find what will interest you!

"I have read your blogs for over a year and you have changed quite drastically and I am sorry for that. Our American Soldiers are getting themselves killed trying to bring you and your country a freedom similar to what we know. If you do not want or appreciate it I hope our military decides to hand it over to your military and walk away. It seems you and your fellow countryman would instead turn on your own people that are trying to deny you {especially females} these basic freedoms."

Another American trying to show me the "right" way.. Does anyone have statistics of how many Americans and Iraqis got killed in this war..? When you do, tell me who lost their lives because of this war!! Your soldiers lost their lives because war is death, and war is a hobby of your president.Dare you say anything more about female rights, we're strong enough to claim them.. For me, I'm totally satisfied with what I had before, as a female. The freedom I want is the one I lost thanks to your country..

"President Bush or any other leader of a country must do what is best for his or her country. That's why they are elected, if it is democracy or how they stay in power if they have assumed power in any other manner."

Even if what is good for your country is having two other countries occupied and many many people killed..? In every country in the world, there is good and bad.. Look at your own faults, maybe then, you'll be too busy to look at other country's faults..!!

Just so you wouldn't get me wrong, I listen when you tell me what you think.. But you do not have the right to tell me how I should feel, who I should love and who I should hate.. You have no right to tell me that the situation is this and that, cuz I'm here, in the war-zone, and I'm pretty sure that regarding the situation, I know better.

I am surrounded by Iraqis 24/7, all kinds.. I know how they feel, and no person can tell me that I don't. Some Iraqis are good, some are bad, all have different opinions, and mine represents most of the ones' I speak for, Moslawis'..

Anyone has the urge to kill me right now? The door is wide enough for a camel as we say, you do not have to come across this blog again..

Open-minds are welcomed.. Being American doesn't mean having an opened-mind by the way.. Closed-minds?? There are blogs that are devoted to cursing Iraqi bloggers, go join.."

179 comments:

well, I think one big problem with some Americans that read Najma's blog is that they are so defensive they are unable to see her point of view, they are just too busy justifying and rationalizing. I have been reading Najma's blog for over a year too and she has a right to say what she says and thinks. I'm sorry she's hassled by people who are unable to set the defenses down long enough to try and feel what she feels.

Now, at least we get some Truth, even if it is in the words of his daughter instead of his own. I can understand and make allowances for the emotions of a self centered young woman, as most are and should be. She has lost the certain promise of a relatively privileged life, though she seemingly still does live a privileged life compared to the majority of young ladies in the world today or in all of history. Having to endure life during a violent revolution for which you see no benefit for yourslf has got to cause understandable angry bitterness. For her, things were just fine. Anne Frank she is not. But neither am I, and I am reluctant to criticize a young lady no matter how preciously precocious, and have refrained from commenting even when it was possible. She has every right and should be allowed that at the very least. But, since her father throws her comments out like so much red meat for his own purposes on his blog, I will comment with him in mind and not her as he no doubt expected would happen.

Firstly, you should all stop whining about the cousins car getting smashed. Be very thankful no one was hurt and stay out of the way of military convoys. It takes some skill to clear the road like that without hurting someone and its tragic when they are. Those driving in convoys who stop for cars blocking roads don't last long in many areas of Iraq and neither do those who have the misfortune of finding themselves in the vicinity when the bombs go off and the fighting ensues. Saying they have been seen stopping for cows proving that Iraqis are treated worse than animals is dishonest or evidence of a lack of intellect--cows don't set ambushes, even in Iraq. If someone is herding the cows and stops a convoy, warm up the hamburger buns and call your neighbors. Make the best of the situation.

Najma/TT SPEAKS for all of Mosul! Even those who fight alongside the American soldiers and treat them as brothers? One thing I do know about Mosul without any doubt, and admittedly it may be the only thing--she nor TT do not speak for all Iraqis in Mosul--I have the personal correspondence to prove it.

And to think TT was indignant when I described him as an enemy of America, although I meant it in an ideological way, not realizing he cheered the fighting and deaths of American soldiers. I thought he found my way of writing irritating when he actually wished my daughter dead!-They search his home, take his weapon--how unfair of them! They seem to spend a lot of time in his corner of Mosul for some reason--bad neighborhood?. Wouldn't be some insurgents or symapathisers, maybe some financial supporters among them? It doesn't sound like they go there for the friendly conversation or ambiance.

His daughter gives a second hand account of a cousin caught up in a crossfire when American's are attacked, she of course assumes the bullets fired are random and American, and then praises those who likely chose to cause the firefight in her cousins presence to begin with? That is openmindedness for you.

TT reported elsewhere about going to Dohuk and seeing how remarkably peaceful and prosperous it was in comparison. He, of course, subtly related it to a lack of presence of American soldiers. I have personal accounts and pictures of American soldiers in Dohuk being treated as heroes for fighting the animals (or mujahadin if you are sympathetic to them) in Mosul who don't dare ply their terror trade among the people of Dohuk. When told that the soldiers are there from Mosul, they shake their heads and say "bad people in Mosul, you are welcome in Dohuk!". American soldiers walk freely in Dohuk, and often are treated to free meals and gifts everywhere they go. It's often a treat to go shopping or visiting/working in Dohuk and other Northern cities and villages dominated by Kurds or Christians. Try denying that, "Truthteller". You may all remain Iraqi, I hope so in the long run, but you don't all have the same view of Americans and you or no one else can claim to speak for them all. I don't have to be there on the ground to know that.

I had some sympathy for those who lost their relatively cushy lives under Saddam, though others paid dearly for their comfort, but today? Thanks for relieving me of that emotion. Earlier this week I got to see some children's drawings made for some US troops who helped build a school and medical clinic for some Iraqis who were treated like dirt by the Saddam regime-one little girl wrote a story about travelling to America and becoming an Army doctor, or so the translation says--I'll reserve my hopes for them and their future. And still hope for a peaceful future even for those who wish dead those who will make their life in a democracy possible, just as they have done for the people of Dohuk whose lives TT envies so.

I too, had a daughter in Mosul. She is not much older than the precious Najma. She certainly doesn't wish to see Najma murdered, would almost certainly risk her own life to try to save Najma's in fact, though Najma has openly stated she praises those who would murder her as an 'occupier'. Admittedly, if she knew Najma's opinion beforehand, she might reconsider, she is no fool. She spent several nights struggling to save many like Najma, most of whom were blown to bits by your 'mujahadin'-- still has pain in her arms from over an hour of bagging a 12 year old Iraq girl who was in tatters from some of their handiwork less than one month ago. She volunteered to be there, gave up her freedom and her own privileged life, endured greater hardship over the last year than Najma has, I would submit. Saw friends killed and injured, had direct attempts made on her life several times--but she wasn't and isn't whining and hopes to return at the first opportunity. She has those children's pictures and memories of grateful Iraqis she met to remind her why she and her fellow soldiers were there. Those children have some hope for a future where they are not denied what the elite have assumed as their birthright. A chance where one can acheive according to ones abilities and efforts instead of turning to a perverted philosophy of the world where their death while in the act of murdering others is their only hope for advancement. It wasn't for TT or those like him that those soldiers fight--it is BECAUSE of them as THEY let Iraq become what it was and is and they who allowed the perversion of the religion they claim to defend that leads us to where we are. To their ultimate shame, assuming they have ever been capable of such a thing. Those who acquiesce to Saddam's evil and to that of the head cutting radical Islamists around them, at the very least bear some responsibility for thier fates. Especially when they wish for Saddam's return out of their own self interests and comfort and oppose those who fight for something better, be they American, Iraqi or any other flavor of human being.

Truthteller (from your comment in the previous thread)Abu Kahleel hasn't posted for over a month - in the good times he was posting at least once a week on his main Blog.He has posted more recently in his second Blog:http://glimpseofiraq.blogspot.com/but this one does not have a Comments section.I am a little confused by some of the previous information you have provided. Strykerdad seems convinced that you were a privilged person under Saddam's regime.Can I ask (sorry if I missed it before:)Are you Sunni or Shia?Are you very religious, only moderately, or relatively secular?(Abu Kahleel was very secular, but very knowlegable about religion in Iraq.)Were you a member of the Baath party?I think Irishcoda above hits the nail on the head when he says that many American bloggers are defensive towards you and Najma - they are saying "we DO mean well, our intentions ARE good."Even Strykerdad is basically saying this - it is just masked by his incredible anger.

What would I do if NZ weren't around to identify my emotions? You mistake disgust with anger, but don't let that stop you from characterizing them. I thought I spelled out pretty clearly some of the basis of that disgust. None of it is for Najma, none of this is of her making--she truly is an innocent. I would give her some years of experience and character building before holding her responsible for anything. Who knows what life has in store for her and those like her. Interesting times, that is for certain. I'm simple enough to believe it could very well be historically great--- I think few if any who lived in times we now regard as historically great knew they were in it at the time they lived it. That is left for those who didn't have to experience it to decide. TT no doubt thinks me a fool, as I do him--but we both love our daughters and have pride in them. I understand his pride, I doubt he does mine. His opinion of mine means nothing to me, and I'm certain my opinion has no effect on his opinion. History will tell us who is right. My side has done pretty well so far, and I won't ever abandon it. TT's side? Well, just look around and judge for yourself, if you can see through your anti-american lenses.

HurriaWell, it would certainly take the wind out of Strykerdad's sails if TT turned out to be Shia, wouldn't it? Or he could be Kurdish, for all we know.Actually I was more interested in how he would answer, if you see what I mean. "Mind your own business" might be his best reply.

HurriaPerhaps his best answer might be "I am Iraqi."I find the way many US blog commenters have come to demonize all Sunni rather interesting.It seems to indicate a sort of compulsive desire to have someone to hate. I'm a leftist liberal myself - should be shot on sight.Some sort of reverse Freudian thing?

All--he is Sunni (by the way NZ, admit that I have continually honored the Sunnis who serve alongside American troops as police and NG in Mosul and stop the cheap shots unless the concept of honor is alien to you)-- and he doesn't admit to being Baathist, but how many Iraqis get to worry about their vacations, shopping trips, internet access, government stipends for their children, choices of universties, sharing the laptop and picture phones and claim Saddam's Iraq was the epitomy of unity and togetherness(all of which can be easily gleaned from their pages) unless they were Baathist or very comfortable with those that were? The Kurds returning from the mountains wanting their homes back from Arab Iraqis have other worries and viewpoints. See if TT will acknowledge their claim that anyone who claimed Kurdish ancestry were banned from owning property in Mosul during Saddam's reign and still were up until at least a year ago. Or that Sunni professionals like engineers and doctors were given their property and stipends in return for relocating to Mosul and surrounding areas after the attempted genocide of Kurds following the first Gulf War. The Arabisation campaign may ring a bell with him. I don't know that he was a direct beneficiary of that program, but others who resembled him certainly were. Look it up yourself, don't take my word for it. You can ignore the many Kurdish and Christians in his vicinity who even today fear those like him and Hurria or those who were their peers, so much they will not openly post to his blog. Yet, a couple email me almost weekly in response to them and those like you. Because they want to be heard by someone and know that their only hope lies in America of which I seem to an unworthy symbol and spokesman on this blog, I suppose. (I'm ready for you folks to tell them to kiss your ass on your own, to tell the truth.) Their fear of Baathist Sunnis is only exceeded by their fear of the radical Shias. They need to find someone elsewhere who is more capable, though they won't find one more certain or determined than I am. You leftists have no use for their stories, or their experience. Their dead, their suffering matter not. And TT and his didn't and don't give a damn because they had theirs and were quite content, thank you, and would glady return to those days.. TT once responded that there was a very good reason why the Sunnis were dominant in the Iraqi government, but he declined to say why while claiming all Iraqis knew the reason well. Others wrote me and speculated, but let him speak for himself if he has the nerve. You weren't bothered because Rueters and BBC didn't put it in front of your faces. Those were the 'good old days' for TT and his peers in Iraq and the leftists outside who don't give a rat's ass unless Americans could be blamed directly. And now it is the extent of American culpability, not the suffering or who is suffering that matters to you, judging from the posts seen here.

Dancewater--where did I assume anything about the anonymous bullets? I didn't, so don't lie about what I said ala NZ. He is quite proficient at such cheapshots and should own the franchise here, at least. I don't know and I will freely admit as much. I'm not shy about such admissions and don't claim to know the unknowable. What I believe beyond any doubt is that at least 99.9% of the Amercian troops have no desire to do harm to innocent civilians, but they will come out firing when ambushed to give themselves and their buddies the best prospect for survival, which I am quite comfortable with. If Iraqis feel the need to invade America, I would expect them to do the same for their comrades. But let's be real here, that isn't going to happen despite their proclaimed superior unity, intellect, education, sophistication, nobility, or their living in the cradle of civilisation which they wear as a badge of pride instead of embarrassment as their stewardship of such a position is due. Why is it that those who consider themslves so superior, continually prove to be so irrelevant in history? Their role is continual bitching and whining, not accomplishment. I am honored to be considered ignorant, uneducated and unsophisticated by the opposition. Particulary by NZ who is comically arrogant and hypocrital. I proudly align myself with the Iraqis who repudiate TT's cynical and defeatist attitudes of which he is not in sole possesion, unfortunatley. He is in no way representative of Iraqis as a whole, despite his claims to the contrary. Some are fighting the good fight which should be familiar to all who live in democratic societies, but the cynical and lazy among us manage to ignore those lessons. Freedom and complacency will do that to folks.

"I find the way many US blog commenters have come to demonize all Sunni rather interesting.

americans can be just as intellectually lazy as any other culture. It is too complicated to precisely identify the loose collaboration of elements that fight against democratization. It ranges from ex-baathi, to salafee, to queda, to organized crime, to displaced wealth, to simple bigotry, to those who turn a blind eye, and others. It is easier to recognize that the Sadrists have been co-opted into the democratic process and nearly all of those who fight the advancement of democracy are now sunni. It is intellectual laziness to think "bad elements amoung the larger sunni population" and say simply "sunni". Major K does a very good job of providing a more nuanced perspective.

Strykerdad, wtf do you mean stay out of the way of Military Convoys??!! If Iraqis can't drive down the street safely in their own country,then...I'm speechless.Those convoys shouldn't be there. End of story.

Strykerdad, wtf do you mean stay out of the way of Military Convoys??!!

OK Janice--so they take your stance and don't get out of the way and tell the convoys how they have no business being there--that truly will be the end of that story and you really would be left speechless. I thought mine was sound, pragmatic advice that anyone could agree with, regardless of their views on the presence of Strykers on Iraqi roads. Declaring the rightness or wrongness of it is beside the point, don't ya think? If your typical head cutting mujahadin only has to park his car in the middle of the road to give himself and his fellow 'heroes' a steady target, he might use that tactic pretty regularly costing the lives of anyone close by, most of whom will not be US military. Lot's of accounts of that very thing happening in Mosul over the last two years. So it's pretty obvious that military convoys are going to have a policy of not stopping when someone fails to clear a way for them, live it- learn it, make a sign and protest it--just do it from the sidewalk and be smart enough when on the road to leave yourself a way to move in a hurry should it become neccessary. The Strykers aren't leaving any time soon, so what else would you advise? Maybe we could get them some of those 'If U Can Read This You Are too Close' bumper stickers?

I doubt I'll get an answer, but I wonder if the owner of the damaged car went to the US civilian liasons and requested reparations? I know they pay out a lot of $s for such things, from damaged cars, to broken doorknobs to lost lives. Might be worth the effort to look into it. Would certainly be interesting. The military might take the view that anyone who tries to enter a stalled lane of traffic leaving the tail end of his car in the right of way of oncoming vehicles, not to mention Stryker vehicles, should bear the largest share of responsiblility for the outcome. I don't think that would be unreasonable. But I've read accounts of the some families of head cutters killed in direct conflicts coming to the headquarters demanding the reparation money for the loss of their 'loved one'while acknowledging the circumstances of his death, so maybe responsibility is viewed a little differently in Iraq.

Is there even an Arabic word for the concept of responsibility, or do they just say 'America' and all understand? How did your car get smashed, Ali?-America--all nod knowingly. Why will my picture phone not work inside the house, Father? America he wisely responds, which also explains why your music downloads are so frustraingly long on your laptop computer. And he sits and contemplates this wisdom amidst his self pity as he surfs the many television channels, which he would never have had to do had the Americans not come along and and allowed others to saddle him with such choices. How he longs for the days of All Saddam, All the Time Television! It was so much easier to know what to think and say when Poppa Saddam was taking care of them all. They even want him to vote and take some responsibility for his own nations sorry fate! Imagine that! America--- indeed. He'll be sure to pray for more mujahadin 'victories' and dead Americans later in the day so that he may be relieved of such onerous burdens.

Now, I think I've beaten that subject into submission, but you directly inquired of me "wtf?", didn't you? I thought I should be thorough in response.

If those convoys weren't there, Iraq would be a much bloodier place than it is right now.

TT is a Baathist, ask him what he did in support of the thousands killed and misplaced by Saddam. No doubt he was fine with it, and ironically, it is now that Saddam is gone that he is able to say what he feels. Had he spoken out before he would be lucky to be alive and Najima would be growing up in much worse circumstances. But no doubt those govt. subsidies and his privilidged position left him perfectly to not to raise his voice in support of those on the wrong end of Saddam's treachery.

Stryker dad, I salute you, rarely have I seen a better advocate for our cause, and in terms of intellectuel arguments you are far and above most others on this board.

Let people hate America, no country is perfect, but no country has done more to protect human rights in the last 100 years either.

Look at Iraq and the whole Middle East, their contributions to society can be counted on one hand. Look how much better off Israel is in every socio-economic statistic you want to examine. For whatever reason, the Arabs can't get it together, and they need to start looking from withing instead of blaming all their problems on the USA and Israel.

Name a religion besides Islam, where the supporters are walking into public places and slaughtering innocent people. So go ahead and hate America TT, but if you want to finally start improving your lot in life, you would do better to look in the mirror.

When a car accident happened with someone we can say it is an accident, but when it repeated almost daily, this is definitly not an accident, it is done on porpose.

Last thursday a son of one of the famous ENT specialist doctors, was in his car when an american convoy pass near by and shooted him, abullet penetrate his mandible taking off most of his face with it, it takes about 5 hours in the operation theater to clean the wound, but he lost his nose and one eye. He is still alife.

On Friday, a christian man with his wife were in their car drivind home near the fifth bridge in Mosul, at the time of the "Fotoor" when the Muslims break their fasting, at this time the streets are almost emty. American shoot him dead, then smashed his car with their stryker, no eye witness. Furtunatly his wife still alife to tell the story.

Every day there is stories like these, and you want the people to admire the murderers for their crimes.

If you feel unsafe even inside your strykers!, how come you claimed that majority of people want you to stay?

BTW Strykerdad, contrary to you I never wish any body dead, even the American soldiers, I wish them all return home safely NOW, but if they don't, your government bear the responsibility of their death.

"I am a little confused by some of the previous information you have provided. Strykerdad seems convinced that you were a privilged person under Saddam's regime."

This is one of the thing that strykerdad knows better than I do!!Any one Offend the american, he is either a privilged person under Saddam's regime, or Terrorist.

"Are you Sunni or Shia?"

I am Iraqi.

"Are you very religious, only moderately, or relatively secular?"

I am moderatly religious.

"Were you a member of the Baath party?"

No on the contrary, On the opposite side always, and had suffer from this attitude.

strykerdad

"TT no doubt thinks me a fool"

Not at all, i guess you are intelligent man full of emotion, but unfortunately your emotion is in different direction than mine.

"but how many Iraqis get to worry about their vacations, shopping trips, internet access, government stipends for their children, choices of universties, sharing the laptop and picture phones and claim Saddam's Iraq was the epitomy of unity and togetherness"

All the real Iraqis except those who were at the side of the Iraq's enemy at time of war, and there fore Saddam revenge from them. Not because they are Sheei or Kurds, but because they are traitors.I am not defending Saddam, but it is the truth. Yes his response was very violent, but I guess yours is not differ from him.

"See if TT will acknowledge their claim that anyone who claimed Kurdish ancestry were banned from owning property in Mosul during Saddam's reign and still were up until at least a year ago. Or that Sunni professionals like engineers and doctors were given their property and stipends in return for relocating to Mosul and surrounding areas after the attempted genocide of Kurds following the first Gulf War."

Forgive for this,. IT IS A LIE, any body told you that is a lier, any body spread this is a lier. This is a propaganda spread by the American to justify their unfair double standard behaviour.

BTW if you are not spreading the lies of the occupation, why you used to delete your comments after a while? is there are any things you don't want others to check it?

TT - I read the piece and it is well written, persuasive and informative. Much unlike Hurria, Najma reveals herself in her writing and this is a gift to the world and the cause of peace. To the extent that people in the world understand each others feelings they can know what the consequences of impersonal policies and plans truly are at the human level.

However, I find one small part of what Najma has written disturbing. She says "But, for that person, who goes out to kill the occupier, I say it now clearly: I'm with the Mujahid."

I am no great philosopher but I personally try to adhere to the standards of pacifism in my philosophy and deeds and have devoted a fair amount of thought to doing so over the years. I believe determined adherance to nonviolence can serve an educational function which in many cases can be more productive than violence.

The problem of any pacifist is contolling emotion in the face of provocation. It is quite a difficult thing to refrain from violence when one is attacked if one has the power to strike back. It is not even clear that it is the correct response in every situation, particularly if refraining from violence would allow harm to people other than one's self or when it would allow a great injustice which violent action could prevent.

I can understand the emotions of people who strike at people who have invaded their country, but I can not condone or approve of these "Mujahid" Najma approves of. They fight and kill not to defend the innocent but prove a political point or, at best, to injure people who they believe are evil. Nonviolent action, a war of words rather than a war of bullets, could make the political point as well or better, and a person who judges, condemns and kills another human on his own authority without benefit of hearing or appeal is careless and unjust if ANY alternative course of faction is available.

When people wage war, the explanation "we wage war on them because they wage war on us" is not good enough and does not lead to peace.

Tell your daughter this is the kind of thing pacifists think about, TT. Ask her for me if she can walk in those shoes.

why you used to delete your comments after a while? is there are any things you don't want others to check it?

Not at all, TT, but a fair question. The first time someone else deleted them, a neighbor who thought he was funny and also wanted to show me how I had revealed too much personal information. Which isn't important to me, but could effect others I care about. Hard to say much more about that and hope it doesn't sound too mysterious.

This last time I deleted them because I was trying to get a person known to me to provide some help with Waldschrat's impressive efforts as I thought she was in a good position to do that. I made the mistake of mentioning your blog in that effort as a way of describing how it came about. She, knowing something about me, knew I was the one posting as Strykerdad and being an anti-war type, decided she would berate me instead of providing any help-(she seemed incapable of doing both which would have been fine by me)-I find a lot of leftists are that way. So that, along with the extreme length of the thread to which I contirbuted way more than my share, prompted me to just delete them. I honestly didn't think they would be missed and saw no value in their remaining. Frankly, I'm surprised you even read them or knew they were missing.

I wasn't going to post any more, but your posting of Najma's account made me decide otherwise. The line that made the difference? But, for that person, who goes out to kill the occupier, I say it now clearly: I'm with the Mujahid. Now if you mean what you say and do not wish death upon American soldiers, why did you choose to put her words on your blog? Did I assume incorrectly that as her father who chose to broadcast those words because you agreed with those sentiments they expressed? If so, then I have been unfair in that regard and apologize, but think perhaps you might want to explain. I only know that I would have taken a different approach had one of mine written something that inflammatory with which I disagreed. Posting it on the WWW would not have occurred to me. But to each his own.

Forgive for this,. IT IS A LIE, any body told you that is a lier, any body spread this is a lier. This is a propaganda spread by the American to justify their unfair double standard behaviour.

Of course I will forgive you for this, as I am often in need of forgivness and try not to be stingy in giving it with that fact in mind. But....

What exactly is the truth about the Arabization campaign from your vantage point? A google search on the subject supplies thousands of hits--I have sought many different resources as I know one Kurd Iraqi who brings up the subject often in his emails to me. Here is my understanding: After the Kurdish uprising following the Iraqi surrender, Kurds im Mosul, Tikrit and other northern regions where given a choice: either officially proclaim their ethnicity as Arab, or lose all property rights. Many thousands fled, many have never been heard from since. The UN puts the figure at around 180,000, others more. The lands and homes left behind were taken by the Baathist regime and used to induce Arabs from the south to move into the north, to rid Saddam of his 'bad Iraqi' problem once and for all. Now many of those who left and survived are returning and understandably want what is rightfully theirs returned to them. I have read dozens of articles, emails, personal accounts of this having happened, including accounts in English versions of Arabic press. I remember one article in particular that interviewed some men in Mosul. the Arab Sunni neighbor 'bought' his Kurdish friend's home when he lost it in the Arabization campaign and has held it for him ever since, allowing him to live there and was working to return the title now that Saddam was gone--I'll try to find it, but that was over a year ago.

Do you actually wish to maintain it did not happen and that such conflicts are lies? You once corrected me by saying there were no Kurds in Mosul, which prompted me to read more. That was when I learned of the Arabization campaign and saw that technically you may be right---did Kurds have to renounce their ethnicity to stay in Mosul and is that the basis of your claim?

I must say, for one who demands all in Iraq are Iraqi and should not be described in any ethnic or sectarian descriptive term, you sure use 'bad Iraqi' a lot when related subjects come up. I don't think you meant to say this, but in your response you seemed to be saying that all Iraqis (the REAL Iraqis)had the privleges and resources that you had under Saddam, it was only the 'bad Iraqis' who went without and sufferred. So what would you estimate is the population of Iraq if we only count the 'real Iraqis' and just what will be done with the rest now that Saddam isn't dealing with them in your behalf? I don't know if you misspoke or told more about yourself than may have been prudent with that effort.

Most importantly, I want to hear more about the daily acts of brutality you say are occuring at the hands of our American troops in Mosul. If you can show me it has some truth, I will raise the issue with every US soldier I know in the region or recently returned. I find your claims to be highly dubious, but I don't discount the possibility that there could be some rogue US soldiers out there. But just because citizens get injured in the course of an ambush doesn't mean they are purposefully and maliciously inflicting damage. It seems like every time you 'real Iraqis' retell of an incident, any injuries inflicted are at the hands of the Americans. Do the mujahadin have magic bullets? I've seen Al Jazeera footage of your might muj and have yet to see one use the sight on their rifle--they often reach around a corner or put thier weapon on top of a wall and depress the trigger. If an American loses a limb and that limb flies through the air inflicting damage to your car, do you blame the Ameican owner of the lost limb? Not to joke about such things, but that is how ridiculous it can get.

What do you or others do when made aware of these incidents you claim are a daily occurrence? As an English speaking Dr., have you called the command and made them aware? Does the Iraqi press ever go after these stories and has there ever been any response? I know there are procedures for reporting grievances and investigations. Not long ago I spoke to a young army enlisted man who told me about testifying about an incident where he and his plattoon raided the wrong house and killed a man's goat in the process. He said all the damages were documented, the man given the phone number and place to voice his grievance. Then after the investigation the man shook their hands, took his money and walked away satisfied. US troops know the way home is through the cooperation of Iraqis--have you ever personally tried to cooperate? I doubt you would like to see them return home more than I--or hope that those just returned never have to go back. Where we differ on that issue is that I would not want them to abandon your 'bad Iraqis' to the whims of the 'real Iraqis' again.

You really want them out? Your mujahadin aren't getting anybody anywhere and will never run the Strykers out. Work through the process, elect a government with representatives who will demand their withdrawal, support the elements within the Iraqi Army and security forces who are trying to do the right thing for Iraq.

TruthtellerThank you for your answers to my questions.Like Janice, I think Strykerdad’s line "stay out of the way of Military Convoys" sums him up.He does not see his country’s troops as liberators in your country, but as conquering bullies who can do whatever they like. (And he doesn't seem to mind much if they shoot innocents rather than run any risks themselves. Which is not exactly a good example for the Iraqi people.)Like Waldschrat, I feel that Najma’s statement that she is "with the Mujahid" was perhaps unwise, because she can be seen as supporting "terrorists," rather than the Resistance, which I think is what she meant to say.Abu Kahleel’s story about Nidal is similar. He was a simple Iraqi milkman, not a terrorist, in a small town I think. He was shot twice in error by US patrols - the second time he died. It was definitely in error - a US officer came to his father afterwards with a sum of money as compensation.The old man thought about it. Then he accepted the money, and gave it to someone who could pass it on to the Resistance.From outside Iraq, these many casual killings of innocents seem the worst aspect of the US military presence there.

"If those convoys weren't there, Iraq would be a much bloodier place than it is right now."

In fact the exact opposite is true. Iraq became a much bloodier place the moment those convoys forced their way violently into the country, and every day those convoys have been there the country has become bloodier and bloodier. The country is overall much worse off now than it was before the convoys came, and the only way to begin to reverse the situation is to get rid of the convoys.

MadtomWhat the hell was the point of that post?Look, there is a lot of deception in the Blogosphere, Truthteller and his family may be a total propaganda construction.But it doesn't seem so.He said he was a doctor at a clinic in Mosul. Waldschrat organised some supplies to that clinic, and they seem to have been delivered. Are they both lying?Truthteller says he is "moderately religious," which presumably means he is not a Jihadi religious fanatic. Do you disbelieve that?He says he is not a Baathist, he suffered under Saddam, he was not privileged. Do you disbelieve that?He says he is a patriotic Iraqi, and does not want to be identified as Sunni or Shia.Do you disbelieve all that? If so, why hang around his Blog?And he and his daughter say that innocent Iraqi citizens in Mosul are being endangered on a daily basis by panicky excessive US fire, a result of the pathetic US failure to "liberate" his country properly, after 30 months.Do you believe that, man?Or do you cling to the belief that George Bush was receiving messages from GOD."George, go to Iraq, dig a deep hole, and jump in it."

"anyone who claimed Kurdish ancestry were banned from owning property in Mosul during Saddam's reign and still were up until at least a year ago."

I don't know where you heard that piece of stupid rubbish, though it sounds like the kind of garbage we hear ad nauseum from the Kurdish mafiocracy and the media they control. I can tell you from direct personal knowledge that rubbish is exactly what it is. Kurds owned property in Mosul without restriction before, during, and after Saddam's regime.

"Or that Sunni professionals like engineers and doctors were given their property and stipends in return for relocating to Mosul and surrounding areas after the attempted genocide of Kurds following the first Gulf War.""

More rubbish. Mosul has always had plenty of professionals of all kinds, and the majority of the population has been Sunni Arab since before the Ottoman empire. In addition there was no attempted genocide of the Kurds following the first so-called "Gulf" war.

The fact is that Iraqis were rewarded in a variety of ways for their support of the regime completely irrespective of whether they were Sunni, Shi`a. Arab, Kurd, Turkmen, Assyrian, Chaldean, or anything else. Try to get it through your head that rewards were not based on sect or ethnicity, but on politics. Support the regime, receive rewards, oppose or defy the regime, receive punishments. Plenty of Shi`as, Kurds, Turkmens, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and others received rewards for their support of the regime, and plenty, plenty, plenty of Sunnis received punishments of all kinds.

HurriaAm I forgiven for asking Truthteller about his sectarian allegiance?Being raised a Protestant, I was made to feel guilty for playing with my Catholic neighbours as a child. But they were much more fun!

I don't know about forgiveness. I was more baffled than anything else by your question.

For me it seems very strange and very sad to be made to feel guilty for playing with someone outside one's religious or ethnic group. Sect and ethnicity seem to be so unimportant compared to most other considerations.

I am an Iraqi woman and I am fed up with U.S people telling me what to feel and say. I am fed up with U.S people and other pro-people talking to me as if I am a terrorist for wanting the occupation to end. The occupation troops have committed terrible crimes in Iraq, they have turned the country into a chaos, so YES I want a clear date for the occupations troops withdrawal, and until that day these occupation troops are ALL under Iraqi law and are put in an Iraqi court for the crimes they commit as any other person in Iraq should be too if they commit any sort of crime.

I am an Iraqi woman and I am fed up with U.S people telling me what to feel and say. I am fed up with U.S people and other prowar people talking to me as if I am a terrorist for wanting the occupation to end. The occupation troops have committed terrible crimes in Iraq, they have turned the country into a chaos, so YES I want a clear date for the occupations troops withdrawal, and until that day these occupation troops are ALL under Iraqi law and are put in an Iraqi court for the crimes they commit as any other person in Iraq should be too if they commit any sort of crime.

Nadia thinks Najma’s comment is admirable.Truthteller, before I go to bed, can I also compliment your daughter on her intelligent and well-constructed post.Can I also offer you my sympathy.Najma reminds me of my elder daughter. She was always best at everything. This is not boasting, just stating a fact, in terms of exam results, awards won, degrees achieved. So many stories ... I remember when she was about 20, she thought she might study Marine Biology, so she took a SCUBA diving course. She was the only girl, among a lot of big strong policemen, rangers etc. The course ended with a long swim, then a trek across mudflats. This tiny girl ended up carrying her own gear, plus that of one of the guys who could not make it. Afterwards, they took her to the local pub (bar) and solemnly anointed her for all time as an "honorary bloke." (A "bloke" in NZ is the ultimate male - strong, silent, and tough.)Now, Doctor super-daughter treats her old father with weary patience and tolerance.Soon, Najma will be telling you what to do, how to think.Be very afraid.

More rubbish. Mosul has always had plenty of professionals of all kinds---Kurds owned property in Mosul without restriction before, during, and after Saddam's regime.

First, are you talking about Mosul the city or Mosul the province? I got very confused in a discussion like this and in the reading that I did afterwards when that wasn't made clear. Facts concerning the province often do not neccesarily hold true for the city.

I have read that such a policy of revoking property ownership rights for those unwilling to declare themselves Arab, but I haven't seen any English translations of Iraqi Modern History to confirm that which might be an acceptable source to you--so I'll concede that point, since it doesn't matter. It happened to a large degree--didn't it? Genocide is an overly used term and often improperly--and I have been guilty of it as well, but do you deny there was an Arabisation campaign? Or that some of those moved north to replace the displaced were no doubt professionals--didn't every Iraq village have a medical professional? Who made the trains run on time, so to speak? Is it unreasonable to assume that they were given some incentives for making such a move? The stories I've read and had told to me sound in line with what UN reports and Human Rights Watch reports say. Is it all rubbish?

Try to get it through your head that rewards were not based on sect or ethnicity, but on politics

I think I've come to understand that pretty well over the last couple of years. But the political is very often defined by ethnic and religious considerations--especially in Iraq and to its detriment. I know that TT's 'real Iraqis' supported or acquiesced to Saddam's rule, and that some of them were of the full range of Iraqi flavors. I know that many Sunni's suffered--some of those moved to northern Iraq were Sunni Arabs forcibly removed from their homes in the south . But the 'bad Iraqis' seem to be overly represented by Kurd's and Shia--they seemed to have been much more in opposition as a group to Saddam's rule. The 'real Iraqis' seem to have a much higher proportion of Sunnis than their percentage of Iraqis at large would seem to warrant if ethnicity and sects were not a primary driving factor. More rubbish or am I getting closer?

Hurria, you are a good teacher only because you prompt me to prove to myself I am right (and find occaisonally I have some things wrong or to try and see another perspective). I just came across some reports written during the initial invasion. Here are two I found interesting then, and even more so now. Those who believe TT's account of Mosul as a place where all within held hands and skipped merrily along oblivious to all differences prior to the American liberation may find this illuminating. Ask yourself why it may very well have appeared to be so to him. Then ask yourself if he was a beneficiary of Saddam's brutality, directly or otherwise, by judging his own words. He apparently believes all was well, got a regular check from the Baathists as did his children (according to her own writings). Which isn't to say he should be equated with Saddam or even Baathists. I have no reason to think he didn't do honorable, commendable things in return for the pay he received. But his life of security and privlege was paid for by many others who harldy shared such a life--you know, the 'bad Iraqis'who fought back or sought change, or happened to be identified with those who did becasue of their religious, ehtnic or tribal connections, though desiring nothing more personally than an opportunity to live a life approaching that enjoyed by TT and his family--the traitors and 'bad Iraqis' as he called them.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0408/p07s01-woiq.html

Would TT bring back Abdullah Wahash - "Abdullah the Monster"?. Is he a 'real Iraqi'?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9629606/site/newsweek/

Are these Iraqis the 'bad Iraqis' TT speaks of and would NZ and his type abandon them to 'real Iraqis'? Why do their wishes not matter to people like NZ if not for their pro-American stance? Does he think them 'bad people' for it? Or does he condescendingly 'pat their heads' and think them misguided?

"But, for that person, who goes out to kill the occupier, I say it now clearly: I'm with the Mujahid."Najma

This is not the first time your daughter has made such statement. She closed her comments over the row that she caused making statement like those. The thing is that when she started talking like that I assumed that she was just repeating what she heard at home. The sad part is that her heroes the Muji are not really targeting Americans, they mostly target fellow Iraqis like the ING, I think they are killing Iraqis at like a 3:1 ratio, and Iraqi civilians at an even greater level. Many of these people are not intrested in Iraq, or Iraqs future, but in their own dominace of minorities at home. They will gladly spill Iraqi blood to futher their own agenda, and will burn Iraq to the ground if you give them the chance. But again I think she just repeats what she hears at home. I have read a few comments out there were I thought that it was someone else writing in her name, the voice changed and it had a sort of adult sound of anger to it that did not appear to be coming from a young girl.

As a father you should be careful of who your children talk to online and you should be aware that there are plenty of people out there that would try to harm a young mind. I for one allow that a parent has every right to teach their own children whatever they want.

My father used to tell me "Don't believe all what you heard unless you see it." I added to his quotes "don't believe all what you see.Your problem is, you think that know every thing about Mosul, even more than what the citizens of Mosul are.

The term "Mosul" is applied only to the city of Mosul. The province where the city of Mosul is located is called Nineveh, and pronounced in Arabic Nenawah.

"I have read that such a policy of revoking property ownership rights for those unwilling to declare themselves Arab, but I haven't seen any English translations of Iraqi Modern History to confirm that which might be an acceptable source to you"

You haven't seen any thing to confirm this LIE because it is a LIE.

"do you deny there was an Arabisation campaign? "

Yes I denied it clearly and laudly, no Arabisation campain in mosul. On the contrary Kurds were moved to live in Mosul fleeing from the struggle between the central government and the Kurdish insurgents.

"The stories I've read and had told to me sound in line with what UN reports and Human Rights Watch reports say. Is it all rubbish?"

If you are correct in conveying the stories, Yea It is all rubbish.

REAL IRAQI: This term needs explaination! as I see you didn't understand it properly.Every body born in Iraq is Iraqi, but the real Iraqi is the one who feel he belong to Iraq, and give his loyality only to Iraq, no matter what the surrounding circumstances are. The Iraqi who stand with the invader, is not real Iraqi. The Iraqi who looted his cities when he got the chance to do so, is not real Iraqi. The Iraqi who recieved weapons and money from foriegn countries to attack his own people is not real Iraqi. You notice there is no ethnic, sectarian or religious differentiation in this definition.

" I have no reason to think he didn't do honorable, commendable things in return for the pay he received"

That is what I called it "Delusion", This is a psychological illness need doctor consultation.

" though desiring nothing more personally than an opportunity to live a life approaching that enjoyed by TT and his family"

The life TT and his family enjoid, is nothing compared to the life he supposed to have, if he lived in other country as US.

It the differences between cultures and believes, who made the definition of Mujahid so widely differs from one person to another.What we believe in Mujahid is the person who put his life and wealth in the service of his religion as first priority and then his country and his family. Defending the country against invasion is a sacred duty.The thing you don't understand is, the mujahid NEVER killed innocent people, NEVER killed his countrymen, NEVER killed a Muslim. you get it now, the terrorist are not Mujahids, those who put bomb in the mosque or schools ara not Mujahid, those who expolde thier selfs in a crowd are not Mujahid.

The term Jihad and Mujahid are often used by those who want to paint the picture of religion over thier acts to be acceptable by the people.

Any way thank you for your concern, and hope you get the meaning of Mujahid when she or me mention it in our blogs.

TT-it sounds like your approved brand of Mujahadin could all meet in a phone booth. Your description would better fit the best of the Iraqi army and police force, but we are different.

Real Iraqis are those who went along to get along? My analogy to Germans during Hitler's experiment stands.

That is what I called it "Delusion", This is a psychological illness need doctor consultation.

Huh? Is there something I missed? Did you not do honorable, commendable things and were you not payed for those things by the Baathist government? How is that delusion on my part? I thought I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, and saying I did not judge whether you were Baathist or not, as anyone deserves. I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. Please explain as I don't want to be unfair in my own way of thinking.

On the revocation of property rights, I know I read it in more than one story and will post one below, but will again concede the point. I am certain I saw it in a story about a Sunni Arab holding property in Mosul in his name for a Kurdish friend which was something I found hope in. A person who says he is Kurd and was driven from Mosul (or maybe it was near Mosul) has told me it happened to his family. I will not, however, concede that non Arabs were not removed by Saddam's forces in huge numbers and their property taken by Arabs. Do you honestly maintain that all of the available material on that issue are fabricaions? All of the stories about Kurds returning to Mosul and surrounding areas reclaiming their homes are..........what? We are learning from you and about you, through this post.

Thank you for correcting me on my Mosul province misstatement--believe it or not, I knew Mosul was not a province, but I have found that a lot of references use the word "Mosul" to include a much wider area and and don't limit it to the city boundaries, especially when writng from an historical viewpoint and that is what I was trying to determine. I should have said the surrounding provinces--Sorry I was not more careful.

As to the Arabization---I could cut and paste all day information related to it. But I'll just offer this excerpt from a very long and detailed article in the New Yorker Magazine published before the war,(all should read it from today's perspective--a lot of info about what REAL Iraqis did to the 'bad Iraqis, what was thought about Saddam's WMD by many at the time and now proven largely wrong, and about the Al Quida connections which have pretty much proven out). You are calling a huge number of people liars when you deny it, and I am proud to be among them:

THE GREAT TERRORIn northern Iraq, there is new evidence of Saddam Hussein's genocidal war on the Kurds—and of his possible ties to Al Qaeda.by JEFFREY GOLDBERG

.....When I went to Kurdistan in January to report on the 1988 genocide of the Kurds, I did not expect to be sidetracked by a debate over U.N. sanctions. And I certainly didn't expect to be sidetracked by crimes that Saddam is committing against the Kurds now—in particular "nationality correction," the law that Saddam's security services are using to implement a campaign of ethnic cleansing. Large-scale operations against the Kurds in Kirkuk, a city southeast of Erbil, and in other parts of Iraqi Kurdistan under Saddam's control, have received scant press attention in the West; there have been few news accounts and no Security Council condemnations drafted in righteous anger.

Saddam's security services have been demanding that Kurds "correct" their nationality by signing papers to indicate that their birth records are false—that they are in fact Arab. Those who don't sign have their property seized. Many have been evicted, often to Kurdish-controlled regions, to make room for Arab families. According to both the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, more than a hundred thousand Kurds have been expelled from the Kirkuk area over the past two years.

Nationality correction is one technique that the Baghdad regime is using in an over-all "Arabization" campaign, whose aim is to replace the inhabitants of Kurdish cities, especially the oil-rich Kirkuk, with Arabs from central and southern Iraq, and even, according to persistent reports, with Palestinians. Arabization is not new, Peter Galbraith, a professor at the National Defense University and a former senior adviser to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, says. Galbraith has monitored Saddam's anti-Kurdish activities since before the Gulf War. "It's been going on for twenty years," he told me. "Maybe it's picked up speed, but it is certainly nothing new. To my mind, it's part of a larger process that has been under way for many years, and is aimed at reducing the territory occupied by the Kurds and at destroying rural Kurdistan."

"This is the apotheosis of cultural genocide," said Saedi Barzinji, the president of Salahaddin University, in Erbil, who is a human-rights lawyer and Massoud Barzani's legal adviser. Barzinji and other Kurdish leaders believe that Saddam is trying to set up a buffer zone between Arab Iraq and Kurdistan, just in case the Kurds win their independence. To help with this, Barzinji told me last month, Saddam is trying to rewrite Kirkuk's history, to give it an "Arab" past. If Kurds, Barzinji went on, "don't change their ethnic origin, they are given no food rations, no positions in government, no right to register the names of their new babies. In the last three to four weeks, hospitals have been ordered, the maternity wards ordered, not to register any Kurdish name." New parents are "obliged to choose an Arab name." Barzinji said that the nationality-correction campaign extends even to the dead. "Saddam is razing the gravestones, erasing the past, putting in new ones with Arab names," he said. "He wants to show that Kirkuk has always been Arab."

Some of the Kurds crossing the demarcation line between Saddam's forces and the Kurdish zone, it is said, are not being expelled but are fleeing for economic reasons. But in camps across Kurdistan I met refugees who told me stories of visits from the secret police in the middle of the night.

Many of the refugees from Kirkuk live in tent camps built on boggy fields. I visited one such camp at Beneslawa, not far from Erbil, where the mud was so thick that it nearly pulled off my shoes. The people at the camp—several hundred, according to two estimates I heard—are ragged and sick. A man named Howar told me that his suffering could not have been avoided even if he had agreed to change his ethnic identity.

"When you agree to change your nationality, the police write on your identity documents 'second-degree Arab,' which they know means Kurd," he told me. "So they always know you're a Kurd." (In a twist characteristic of Saddam's regime, Kurdish leaders told me, Kurds who agree to "change" their nationality are fined for having once claimed falsely to be Kurdish.)

Another refugee, Shawqat Hamid Muhammad, said that her son had gone to jail for two months for having a photograph of Mustafa Barzani in his possession. She said that she and her family had been in the Beneslawa camp for two months. "The police came and knocked on our door and told us we have to leave Kirkuk," she said. "We had to rent a truck to take our things out. We were given one day to leave. We have no idea who is in our house." Another refugee, a man named Ibrahim Jamil, wandered over to listen to the conversation. "The Arabs are winning Kirkuk," he said. "Soon the only people there will be Arabs, and Kurds who call themselves Arabs. They say we should be Arab. But I'm a Kurd. It would be easier for me to die than be an Arab. How can I not be a Kurd?"

Peter Galbraith told me that in 1987 he witnessed the destruction of Kurdish villages and cemeteries—"anything that was related to Kurdish identity," he said. "This was one of the factors that led me to conclude that it is a policy of genocide, a crime of intent, destroying a group whole or in part.".......http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content?020325fa_FACT1

Truth Teller said - REAL IRAQI: This term needs explaination! as I see you didn't understand it properly.Every body born in Iraq is Iraqi, but the real Iraqi is the one who feel he belong to Iraq, and give his loyality only to Iraq, no matter what the surrounding circumstances are. The Iraqi who stand with the invader, is not real Iraqi. The Iraqi who looted his cities when he got the chance to do so, is not real Iraqi. The Iraqi who recieved weapons and money from foriegn countries to attack his own people is not real Iraqi. You notice there is no ethnic, sectarian or religious differentiation in this definition.

What if 80% of the people living in Iraq choose to stand with the invader - for now? Just until they are completely sure that the terrorist and baathi are permantently removed and that Iraqi army is strong enough to fight off any neighbors? Who then is the true Iraqi? Do the people belong to Iraq or does Iraq belong to the people?

"TT-it sounds like your approved brand of Mujahadin could all meet in a phone booth. Your description would better fit the best of the Iraqi army and police force, but we are different. "

Strykerdad beat me too it, I was going to say something similar, so I will ask TT a different question. Can you point to an operation in Iraq that was Muji?Or if you can not will you in the future point out to us here when you see an operation that would fit into your definition of the Muj?Are there any local or national leaders or organizations that fit into your definition of Mujahadin?And if I can ask a stupid question, why did the Muji never come to Iraq to get saddam?

I promise no more commenting for a while, I have things to do that are hopefully much more useful and will take me away from a computer monitor. So I thought I'd end my side of our conversation on a point of agreement--at least I'll start it that way....

TT in response to Strykerdad:i guess you are ... man full of emotion, but unfortunately your emotion is in different direction than mine.....The life TT and his family enjoid, is nothing compared to the life he supposed to have, if he lived in other country as US.

That is something of which you and I can agree, TT. But the same can be said of lots of litle blameless children everywhere. We are where we find ourselves--I was blessed to find myself here. But what I have here is due to the hard work and sacrifice of often heroic Americans, which I try not to forget and hope I contribute something to maintaining what they have given. You need to ask yourself how you can contribute to giving yours what you and I both think they deserve. Self pity is not going to get them there.

Any emotion you may hear from me is because I think this way at times when reading your words, please try to walk with me a little: My daughter gave up her life for a time to serve in Iraq with the US military out of a desire to contribute to ultimately making the world a better place--especially Iraq. I know you think that is foolish, but that is beside the point. Time will tell if that was foolish or not--we aren't there yet. She could have stayed in college, could have chatted online with friends, bought the latest music and cell phones to talk with her friends endlessly , gone shopping--- but she didn't. My family, too, has sat and waited for word from our daughter after hearing of the latest attacks and had no way to reach her. But that hasn't made us bitter or sorry for ourselves. It has only strengthened our resolve.

Then I read your daughter's(?) statements denigrating that sacrifice. Much of her life is the life my daughter should have been living, from what she tells-but I can certainly understand her attitude and make allowances. I'll say it again, she is not living in a world of her making.

You, on the other hand, are among the men, 'the real Iraqis', who stood by while Saddam made this all neccesary. You and all Iraqi men who knew better as decent men had to have known where this was headed, but allowed it to go on for your own comfort and convenience in the present. Some fought back, tried to change things, and you call them the 'bad Iraqis, traitors'. You should be dedicating statues to their memories in some cases. Had they succeeded, had men like you lead the way in overthrowing Saddam, maybe my daughter would never have set foot on Iraqi soil and never been shot at, had to gather the limbs ripped from the bodies of Iraqi children, found herself covered in their blood as she did her part to try and save them, or done any number of things a man hates to think his daughter would ever find herself doing, even for an American. I'm proud she did, and will be proud if she is called upon to return. But maybe she won't if Iraqi men like you overcome your pride/shame, self pity and take the opportunity that is lying there for you to take. I can not believe a seemingly good and honorable man such as yourself can possibly think your Mujahadin have any intention of giving you the life you think you and yours deserve. You may want the US to leave, but many don't and I expect my country and my daughter to stand with them. When a majority vote in a government that demands they leave, I will celebrate more than you will, I expect. Then you truly will have the life you deserve, for good or bad. I know I'm asking a lot, I may have been asking the impossible prior to the liberation, but now it is certainly possible thanks to the sacrifice of many. I only know what I would do because I have never known life any other way, but I think it has more to do with being a man and a father than Iraqi or American. Yeah, I'm simple like that and feel no embarassment or shame because of it.

I thank you for your indulgence and have appreciated the opportunity to engage you like this. Peace

Another Iraqi's viewpoint I thought you all might find interesting. http://youngmammy.blogspot.com/ While this woman does not like our government's actions, she does like the American people. Just food for thought.

"Is there something I missed? Did you not do honorable, commendable things and were you not payed for those things by the Baathist government? How is that delusion on my part?"

You know very well my Job, it is the only thing I have been paid for, and did you know how much, the sum of my salaries for the period from 1991 till 2003 is less than the sum of my salaries of 3 months I recieved now. BTW my salary now is = $400. It was range from $3 to $8 a month.In spite of that the real Iraqi didn't sold his country to the forienger for money.

"Real Iraqis are those who went along to get along? My analogy to Germans during Hitler's experiment stands."

I don't think you get the point, go and read it again.

"THE GREAT TERRORIn northern Iraq, there is new evidence of Saddam Hussein's genocidal war on the Kurds—and of his possible ties to Al Qaeda.by JEFFREY GOLDBERG"

I read this article very carefully and don't find any possible tie to al Qaeda.In addition there is nothing in it about Mosul. In spite of that I can confedently say it is more than 80% Lies.

It happened once, during the Iraq-Iran war, because the central government was unsure about the loyality of the Kurds, it excluded the kurds from the military service, at that time a tribe settled near by Mosul have from the time of Persian invasion to Iraq, they called themselfes as "Shabak", They are Persian in origin not Kurds, some of them claimed thier selfes as Kurds to get rid of the military service. those who did so are forced to move to the NORTH to kurdistan (The Kurd's land).I don't heard any thing from any of my close friend Kurds, about what this article said.BTW I have many Kurdish friends especially fron Duhook, Zokho and Aqra, most of them heads of their tribes we used to exchange ideas about the situation in the area, but no one said any thing about the genocide this article described. All what had been said is about the destruction of Kurdish villages when the insurgent are take it as their besa (exactly like what the American did in Falluja, Haditha, Al qaim. Tal Afar and so and so). The only difference is Saddam's operations were against villages while the American's were against towns.

" Then I read your daughter's(?) statements"

What a (?) mean here ?, Are my doaghters not mine? or else? may be you meant that those "statements" were not my doaghter's ones?

do you want the truth? I don't expect you to accept it but nonetheless here it is in simplified form.

1) The US can not and will not occupy Iraq for more than a few years. It is impossible to happen because the American political system does not allow a president to serve for more than 8 years. Even if he is the greatest president who ever walked the earth his service still has an 8 year maximum. It is impossible for america to support an extended occupation because after 8 years a competitor for the chair of presidency will promise to end the war and he will be elected.

2) The reason america fights in Iraq is for democracy in the mid-east. because democracy can not support war for more than one or two election cycles, democracy will eventually bring peace. Peace in the mideast means a lot of good things for america as well as people who live there. For america, peace means stable oil suppliers that will allow american corporations to make 5-10 year business plans with accurate forecasts of energy costs. There is the human side as well, with peace the people of the mideast will begin to examine their dictators rather than focusing upon percieved external enemies.

3) Those who collaborate are not doing so at america's behest. They sincerely believe that democracy is good for Iraq. They endure much more hardship than US troops including a much higher chance of being assasinated and dangers to their family. To say that they are un-Iraqi or traitors is simply false. They have a different vision than you of governance. They believe that democratic governence is better for Iraq than despotic. They are putting their lives on the line to build a future for their children and your children. Historically and statistically their view has been proven correct. Your grandchildren are far more likely to prosper under democracy than despotism.

4) Those who lead the insurgency are not stupid or ignorant people. They know full well that america is incapable of colonialist expansion outside of the contiguous north american borders. It is not america nor occupation that they fight against. Look at their targets. Look at the people they choose to kill. They are fighting to keep out democracy. The founding principle of democracy comes from Islam. That neither arab nor non-arab, neither black nor white, neither rich nor poor, neither christian nor jew is better than another. That no man shall take from another the inalienable right to choose, the freedoms of thought, or the freedoms of speech that god has given without his willing consent. It is ironic that the islamicists fight against it. Under such a system, the dictator has little chance of keeping power. Those who lead you insurgency do so from a thirst of power.

5) The shia crescent is a false enemy used to play upon your fears. In democracy everyone has a permanent voice. It is not a case where whichever voice gets the most votes is then declared dictator. The true power of democracies lie in their legislatures which (if everyone votes) will reflect the diversity and balanced of the Iraqi people. The sharing of power is permanent and continuous.

I can not tell you how your life is in Iraq. Nor can I tell you about how the soldiers treat you. Nor can I tell you how to tell the honest from the dishonest politician. I am sure that of these things you know far more than I. But of america, why she is in Iraq, what she works to accomplish, how long she will stay, or how power is shared in a democracy. Yes, if you are willing to listen then I can tell you these things.

It’s all very well for Americans like Strykerdad to excuse the violence committed by their troops, and to try to justify the harsh measures taken by soldiers. From a soldiers point of view it makes perfect sense to ride over uncooperative cars and to open fire at people who get too close, since they risk attack and death from guerrillas at any time.

However, the logic and justifications become somewhat warped when one takes into consideration that the US is AN INVADER. The deaths of Iraqis resulting from firefights between patriotic Iraqis and US soldiers can only be laid directly at the door OF THE UNITED STATES, since IT instigated the wars and the moral right to fight lies with the person defending.

Hence these repeated calls for the Resistance to give up its weapons and cease fighting, in order for US troops to leave are laughable. Laughable because they try and lay the blame for continued violence at the feet of Iraqi patriots, using a twisted kind of logic.

In reality, the US has no intention of ever leaving at all.

Let’s recap here folks.

America has often stated its claim to primacy in the Middle East, a region which it has no historical basis to be in. For example:

Carter Doctrine:

US president Carter announced in 1980 : “"An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."”

PNAC:

Rebuilding America’s Defences P.26

“Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

Rebuilding America’s Defences P. 29

“From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region.”

(PNAC – Project for a New American Century is endorsed by virtually all the potentates of the Bush Administration, as well as several policy developers.)

Combine these openly stated goals with the goal of the US Neocons to shape the world to their liking, and to assure US dominance for at least the next century … combine all this with the megabases being constructed in Iraq which are not at all temporary structures, and one can only come to the conclusion that the US does not intend on leaving even if the violence ceases.

Folks, that statement is an outright lie, and is being used as a convenient double-action smokescreen in order to justify for the time being US troops in Iraq and to vilify resistance to their presence.

The other argument is that because the US got rid of Saddam Hussein, Iraqis “owe” Americans something. BULLSHIT. Nobody asked you to intervene, and to destroy the country in the process. You intervened for your own selfish reasons, not for altruistic purposes. Indeed, there was even rejoicing in some (US) quarters that Saddam was so bad, because that would mean that Iraqis would comply with whatever the Americans wanted.

Uh, excuse me? Can we reverse this situation for a second and consider for a moment American material and informational support of Hussein? Such as lists of Communists to be exterminated with the rise of the Ba’ath to power?

SO, you help Saddam to inflict damage and suffering on Iraqis, and then expect later to be thanked when the source of that suffering is removed? How does that work?

This is reminiscent of the torture techniques that the US uses on Iraqis, such as stripping them naked and denying them basic rights that prisoners have. As a ‘reward’ the rights that they ought to have in the first place are gradually restored to them in return for information. But there is no reward. There is only cessation of punishment.

There is a reason that insurgent leaders never make their political demands known and refuse to discuss any future vision of governence. The resistance leaders plot, plan, finance, and coordinate in order to achieve despotic power. All one needs to do is look at their choices of targets (overwhelmingly iraqi citizens) and their strategies (intimidation, terror, and assasination). Clearly there is a pattern. They are trying to establish yet another corrupt mid-east regime. But you know this to be true. That too is obvious from your refusal to discuss the topic. You love to spew anti-american propaganda but the simple fact remains that democracy is the least bad of all available options.

TruthtellerI frankly can’t see much use in long arguments with Strykerdad about the history of what did or didn’t happen with the Kurds in Mosul. If he was pressed, I doubt that he would say something like, "Well, Najma’s father is Mosul Arab, therefore she should be denied entry to University, so that a Kurd can have her place," or "If Najma is shot by accident by a US patrol, that is very sad, but she partly deserved it because of her privilege." I don’t think he really thinks like that, it just comes across that way. More important, it seems to me, is the issue of "collateral damage," which he seems to prefer not to discuss. This appears to be what has led Najma to openly state her approval of the Resistance. You mention above an innocent young man with his jaw shot away by US fire, Najma in an earlier post spoke of a cousin’s car demolished by a passing Stryker.This issue apparently relates to two US military doctrines prevalent in Iraq: that of "force protection," of taking no chances in protecting US lives, and "overwhelming force," using maximum firepower, again rather than putting US lives at risk.At http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=23549 there is a long article by Michael Schwartz. In the middle of it, he attempts to guess at the numbers of "innocent" Iraqis killed by checkpoint shootings, patrol shootings, house searches, combat air support, etc. His estimates are of course wildly speculative, his method subject to all sorts of reservations: but he comes up with a tentative figure of 25,000 a year. (This is leaving aside totally the number of "innocents" wounded, detained on suspicion, with houses damaged or destroyed, and so on.)Who knows, the figure could be half that he arrives at, or twice that. But the point surely is that every such incident leaves 10 or 20 or 100 family members, relatives, friends, neighbours, clansmen feeling like Najma does.Strykerdad of course would say that "you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs," that it is worthwhile in the cause of freedom. But at what point do you end up saying "you can’t make an omelette without strangling the chicken?"So as a citizen of Mosul, what has been your experience? Can you make a rough count of the innocent people known to you personally - family members, relatives, friends, neighbours, colleagues, clansmen - who have been directly and seriously adversely affected, killed, wounded, lives severely disrupted, by direct actions of US troops? And perhaps the number similarly affected by terrorist or insurgent actions?Maybe I’m asking too much. I realise it will be a sensitive subject for you. But I think if I was in a situation similar to yours, that would be my first concern - Uncle Fred who was detained in error, my friend Joe who was wounded at a checkpoint, my neighbour whose house was damaged in a search.

Truth Teller, may I too say that I think Najma's post was admirable, restrained, brave and concise.

People like Strykerdad are beyond reach. What the US (with the help of our wretched Prime Minister) have done to Iraq is infamous. History shows that, taken together, Americans are a violent people but I so wish that Iraq had been spared their greed, cruelty and crimes against humanity.

"What we believe in Mujahid is the person who put his life and wealth in the service of his religion as first priority and then his country and his family."

I think the kind of person you are describing is what we would call a patriot.

But who is to determine what actions are patriotic? In our country we have people who are supporters of the war in Iraq and those who are not. Is one more patriotic than the other? They all care about their country and believe that they are doing the best they can for it.

The people you say are "collaberating with the invaders" may believe they are working to establish the institutions that are necessary for a stable and functioning Iraq. In other words "in the service of" their country. That to my way of thinking is the act of a patriot. They are doing the best they can for their country to improve the situation.

Where we differ, I think, is in WHAT would improve the situation. You seem to think that the immediate withdrawal of Coalition troops will be just the thing to do so. We, on the other hand, are not sure that the institutions that are currently in place are strong enough to withstand the actions of the terrorists and others who wish to dabble in Iraq's internal affairs.

You want us gone, TT? Than show us that you CAN fight the terrorists, and win. Show us that you can govern in a fair and equitable manner. If you don't like the constitution as written go out and vote against it. If you do support it then go out and vote for it. Make us feel superfluous in our minds.

"You want us gone, TT? Then show us that you CAN fight the terrorists, and win. Show us that you can govern in a fair and equitable manner." Isn't that what the British used to say, in India and Pakistan and Malaya, in Kenya and Uganda, in so many places when "half the globe was coloured red?"All those places have gone their own ways, sometimes disastrously.But isn't that better, in the long run, than one Imperial nation thinking they can have "Dominion over palm and pine," over "lesser breeds without the law?"Sorry, I forgot, of course Truthteller is only a half-educated tent-dwelling primitive Arab, isn't he.

"You want us gone, TT? Then show us that you CAN fight the terrorists, and win."

Aside from pointing out the patronizing, arrogant nature of this rant - we are not obligated to show you anything at all - I would point out that there were no terrorists operating in Iraq before you came in and opened the way for them.

"Show us that you can govern in a fair and equitable manner."

How we govern is none of your damned business. You blasted your way into the country, now kindly blast your way out and leave us to repair the damage you caused.

Sure it is, your last government made it our business by getting in our face, so now it's our turn.But no worry it's almost over, we may be out of your hair before you know it. Be ready, because ready or not things are moving, and things are changing, they may be paving our road home.

Ah yes, Madtom, it seems that Dancewater has forgotten about the Iraqi bombing of Washington. She was also very silly to have overlooked the Iraqi invasion of Texas which resulted in so much death and destruction. Not to mention the Iraqis evil attempts to take over Wall street.

In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate [...]The participant forces proclaim that they deal with the national reconciliation, which they were the first to call for since the beginning of the occupation, and with the writing of the constitution, on the basis of what follows:

1) A clear, precise, public, and binding under international guarantees, timetable for the withdrawal of the occupation troops from Iraq in all their aspects and forms.

2) Abolition of the principle of repartition according to sectarian, racial or ethnic lines, and adoption of the principle of citizenship and equality in rights and duties in front of the law.

3) Acknowledgement of the principle of the right of the Iraqi people to reject occupation; recognition of the Iraqi resistance and its legitimate right to defend its country and its resources; rejection of terrorism which takes aim at innocent Iraqis, facilities and institutions of public utility, and places of worship -- mosques, husseiniyyat Shia religious centers, churches and all holy places.

[...]

5) Adoption of democracy and election as the only option for the transfer of power, and the preparation of conditions and laws allowing the political process to take place in honest and transparent conditions, under neutral international supervision.

6) Affirmation of the patriotic, Arab and Islamic identity of Iraq, and firm opposition to all positions that might lead to the loss of this identity. [...]

(28) Signatories

Johninnz –

“Strykerdad of course would say that "you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs," that it is worthwhile in the cause of freedom. But at what point do you end up saying "you can’t make an omelette without strangling the chicken?"”

Strykerdad,Do you use an article writen by someone called Jeffrey GOLDBERG as prove against Iraqi treatment of Kurds? Could it be that a Jewish writer might have a less than objective view on things happening in Iraq? Or even less than truthfull view on those questions? Would you believe anything writen by a nazi about jews?...

Moron99 keeps thinking Americans are peaceloving people who never act on imperialistic impulses. Has he read American history? American actions in Central America (El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama) and present threats against Venezuela, are all prove of that imperialist attitude. Contrarily to what Moron99 thinks - if he thinks that at all - America is one of the most aggressive countries in present times. That's why I think that Iraqis' struggle against the US is also our fight. Only if Americans are stopped in Iraq may we expect some peace in the world. Otherwise we will have to witness a succession of wars against Syria, Iran, etc., until the final mistake that will precipitate another world war. Like Germany in 1939, the US must be stopped now.

Najma, as always, has written a really good article. Many Americans/War-lovers like StrykerDad are just plain angry with such reports. There may be several opinions but only one truth. You know what? The truth always hurts and that's why they cannot bare it.

I would like to know if say China managed to invade America because they think it is the only way for a stable world - in their interest. And let's say (to you fellows who love soldiers) some soldiers hear some shots and the chinese soldiers started shooting like mad. A woman who was just going to the shop and her son got killed. This woman happened to be your wife or maybe your sister. The little boy, obviously, would have been your son or nephew. What would you do? Through your comments I think you'll just lay back and say that these soldiers were just doing their job and there must be a valid reason behind that. I think not, you'll be the first ones to show your 'independence day' or 'rambo' skills.

The Iraqis are the ones who really knows what's happening to them on the ground - not us foreigners.

TT, I can completely understand the anger at being invaded and occupied by a foreign power. I can't imagine that this situation is pleasant to say the least. And I am sure, even if they have the best intentions, that the American soldiers get things wrong and kill or hurt innocent people sometimes. I am sure I would be very upset by this also.

What I don't understand is the lack of anger at insurgents and terrorists. You have mentioned Americans shooting randomly and wildly and killing innocent bystanders, but seem to be under the impression that it is only Americans who do so. I don't understand how you manage to maintain this impression.

Do you think the insurgents are better trained than the Americans and better equipped with laser sighted rifles or something, so that they can always be sure never to hit any bystanders? What on earth makes you think they even try not to hit bystanders? Don't you see evidence every single day of terrorists specifically targeting Iraqi's, and using bombs meant to spread destruction far and wide, rather than contain it so that it only affects a specific target? Of Course some of those bullets flying by and striking bystanders belong to insurgents. You just don't get mad at them.

But what is even more shocking and appalling to me, is that you don't seem to have any anger at the terrorists who aren't even bothering to pretend to target Americans, or even Iraqi police and army. Like those who bomb ice cream parlors, funerals, marketplaces, killing men, women and children at random. I read about these things and my heart breaks and I am crying and you are silent and uncaring unless Americans can be blamed. Is it not possible to hate BOTH the American occupation AND the insurgency that is costing so many lives and making it so much harder for the Americans to go home?

Someone mentioned above that terrorists kill Iraqi's about three times more often than Americans and your response was that there was no terrorism in Iraq before the American invasion. Of course, that is not counting Sadam as a terrorist, but even so, the terrorists are killing Iraqi's! They are not Mujahid fighting to free their country, they are terrorists, fighting to control Iraq themselves and start their own reign of terror. And you only have a problem with America, not with them.

Blaming America for the terrorist atrocities is foolishly clinging to a worldview in which America and Isreal are the only evil and all Muslims are just victims. Haven't you seen the lie of this yet? Will you really be so much happier to be subjugated by Muslim terrorists than American occupiers?

I can only hope that you despise the terrorists just as much, you are just afraid to voice that because you don't want to encourage Americans.

"Aside from pointing out the patronizing, arrogant nature of this rant - we are not obligated to show you anything at all -"

Did I say you were obligated? No. My "rant" as you call it was simply a suggestion as to how to get rid of us. One that may work better than trying to kill each other.

As for the terrorists not being in Iraq before we came, the point is moot. They are in Iraq now and do not seem to have any intentions of leaving anytime soon. To think they will simply pack their bags and leave when we do is overly optimistic. Therefore YOU must be prepared to deal with them when we do.

"As for the terrorists not being in Iraq before we came, the point is moot. They are in Iraq now and do not seem to have any intentions of leaving anytime soon."

On the contrary, the point is anything but moot. You opened the way for them in the first place, you have facilitated their ability to operate, by your unspeakable brutality you have acted as the best recruiting tool they could possibly hope for, and the only effect your efforts have had is to increase the number and severity of their attacks.

So, whether they will pack up and leave when you do (and the evidence indicates that to a large extent they will) is moot. Your forces are still responsible for the overwhelming majority and greatest magnitude of violencem, death, and destruction, and furthermore your presence exacerbates the terrorist violence. Given all that, and even if the terrorists did NOT pack up and get out, Iraq would be far, far, far better off with you gone.

Jen and Lynette both seem to subscribe to the propaganda oversimplification of attributing all violent acts in Iraq to "terrorists."Without bothering to give references, there have been many media articles, including statements by US military leaders, pointing out the multi-headed nature of the Iraqi insurgency, and the fact that the foreign fighters who commit most of the random bombings of civilians, and who are trying to foment sectarian division, make up only about 5% of the total.Attacks on US troops by "insurgents" or "the resistance" are apparently running at about 60 a day at present. These would obviously stop if those troops weren't there.It is also quite likely that attacks on "puppet" troops and police would also reduce if they were no longer puppets, i.e. if their US masters weren't there.And as I've suggested above, current US military tactics which kill or injure innocent civilians are probably creating more new insurgents than they are killing or capturing, and increasing their support base - Iraqis who have ended up thinking like Najma.Whatever the eventual outcome of this tragedy, one fight has surely been lost long ago - the battle for hearts and minds.Even the British down in the South seem to be losing this battle too.

Lynette"when I talk about terrorists I am talking about the people who committed the acts written about in the article below. I have no idea if they are foreign or born in Iraq."Well exactly. You seem detirmined not to get it.A suicide bomber who clearly targets civilians is obviously a terrorist by any definition.One who targets a US or Iraqi Army checkpoint may be just an Iraqi driven to despair by the death of an innocent loved one.And one who attacks a US patrol with gunfire or an IED may be, from some points of view, no more a terrorist than the Polish or French resistants against Nazi patrols in WWII. They didn't like Germans driving around their countries acting as if they owned the places.Of course the Germans called them terrorists, but the rest of the world didn't.Lumping all Iraqi resistance together under the term terrorist seems to me to be a dangerous over-simplification.I've seen statements from US Generals to the effect that much of their fighting is against the third type of resistance given above.And I've already suggested what has caused much of this resistance.Have you any intelligent comment to make about the issue of innocent Iraqis killed in error by US fire?

Apparently many things, not to mention the attack on Kuwait, and ten years of targeting our planes, the funding of terrorism in Israel, to name a few. I bet you won't do any those openly again. You or your friends. It's amazing the collective amnesia you see round here, maybe you should all check into TT hospital, you might have a brain tumor.

"On the contrary, the point is anything but moot. You opened the way for them in the first place, you have facilitated their ability to operate, by your unspeakable brutality you have acted as the best recruiting tool they could possibly hope for, and the only effect your efforts have had is to increase the number and severity of their attacks."

And you do not see the fallacy of your argument? The fact that they kill Iraqis?? If as you say it's our "unspeakable brutality" they would be attacking us, not you. They are obviously there because of your unspeakable blindness to their actions. Once we leave you their favorite target will still be there. They will have it made. The killing fields will have anew meaning.

I'm sorry that my country has occupied your country and is tearing it into finer shreds than it was before with Saddam. We have no business in your country in the manner that we are. It was under false pretenses and the people here will do anything to justify a president who obviously doesn't care for them.

On the other hand, as teenage girl myself, I am very proud of your daughter for voicing her opinions and being able to defend them reasonably.

a terrorist is someone who intentionally targets innocent civillians with violence as a means to achieve political goals. As such those who set off IED's and launch mortars would not be terrorists unless they intentionally aim their attack at innocent civillians. Examples of terror would be the carbomber who followed US soldiers in Mosul waiting until there were children present before charging and exploding. In this case it is terror because the insurgent made the conscious decision to wait until children were present. In another case you would have the gas tanker explosion outside the mosque. Clearly the queda with explosive vest is a terrorist. But what about the baathi who coordinated the stealing of a gas tanker, arranged for it to be temporarily sheltered, and then paid a driver to park it outside of a busy mosque. Would he be a terrorist too? He did not personally kill anyone. Yet it was he, the insurgent, who provided the food, money, shelter, logistics, maps, timing, coordination, etc. etc. Would he be a terrorist? Or is the terrorism only limited to those who die?

Madtom"If as you say it's our "unspeakable brutality" they would be attacking us, not you.""They" ARE attacking you - they've got 2000 of you so far, and a lot more of your puppet troops, and things are no more under control than they were a few months after you arrived.Your presence might even be a little bit justifiable if you were actually achieving anything significant for the Iraqi people, but you don't seem to be.If the mightiest army in the world can't handle a few thousand terrorists, then it might as well go home.If it's actually trying to handle a few hundred thousand resistants, which seems to be more probably the real situation, then it might as well go home, too.

Your presence might even be a little bit justifiable if you were actually achieving anything significant for the Iraqi people,

You don't count what's going on, and what's not going on in Kurdistan, and the fact that 90% of the country is relatively calm

If it's actually trying to handle a few hundred thousand resistants, which seems to be more probably the real situation, then it might as well go home, too.

We are not sheep, we don't run from a challenge. We work to implement a solution. A political solution that has in fact been accepted by a very large majority of Iraqi's that would like to try something different. Don't they count for you? But of course the dictator crowd is not in for solutions they want chaos, as it will lead to easy domination of the masses.

John why do you think that the regular Iraqi is incapable of living within a democratic society? Do you think it's beyond them?

Madtom"Yet it was he, the insurgent, who provided the food, money, shelter, logistics, maps, timing, coordination, etc." (for the terrorist)That is sort of a fair point, but far as I'm aware there's not a lot of proof that the genuine "foreign fighters" or worst extremists enjoy widespread support among ordinary Iraqis who still oppose the occupation.Whereas the genuine insurgents or resistants probably do.In any case just fuming about wicked terrorists doesn't seem to be a very useful military tactic.But it is possibly better than destroying entire cities full of helpless innocents in order to get at the terrorists.

MadtomOur discussion is a bit out of sync, one of us is always one post ahead. I've got to go to work anyway.My impression is that most ordinary Iraqis are far more interested in a bit of security, stability and prosperity than in democracy, at this point.And this experiment in imposing instant democracy at the point of a gun may have been well-meant by some in the US, but with Iraq seemingly on the brink of civil war, it looks like it might be a case of "back to the lab, Frankenstein, let's try that a different way."

there's not a lot of proof that the genuine "foreign fighters" or worst extremists enjoy widespread support among ordinary Iraqis who still oppose the occupation.

We are not occupying Iraq. We are also against occupation, that why we try to implement a political solution. Something that has worked everywhere it's been tried. Even for you in NZ, or would you like to return to the days of King Gorge

Were're all ears. You can look around the world, there are plenty of places to try anything you want, we have been trying other methods, I think we created something called the UN as a means to bring people closer together, and our policy in China is completely different. But all solution can not be applied to every situation. Iraq got what saddam made for it.

madtom said: "We are not occupying Iraq. We are also against occupation." This sounds like a non sequitur, ie. it does not follow, you've made an inference that does not follow from the premises.Specifically you've created or laid claim to a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent. What you've said doesn't follow logically from anything previously said!

Occupations are normally understood as military invasions which impose themselves on a country through military superiority and intimidation. The population are under threat of reprisal should they not acquiesce to the will of the invader! To say america is not an occupier in Iraq is simply and profoundly stupid. It undermines your credibility and renders anything else you might say as lacking in substance and potentially subject to ridicule!

America wouldn't survive a week in Iraq aside from their weaponry and military prowess. Iraqi's wouldn't behave in any similar fashion if it weren't for the prescence of over 100,000 heavely armed and extremely dangerous foreign occupiers. To say anything less is entirely disengenuous! Fradulence seems to be your main focus, I'm sure any Iraqi would see the transparency of your position which renders even phsychodads apologism somewhat more palatable!

What a (?) mean here ?, Are my doaghters not mine? or else? may be you meant that those "statements" were not my doaghter's ones? >

Sorry for being cryptic, TT. The (?) was in reference to a continuing question as to whether or not this statement originated with you, or whether or not you associated yourself with the statement as I assumed even though it contradicted your statement that BTW Strykerdad, contrary to you I never wish any body dead, even the American soldiers, I wish them all return home safely NOW, but if they don't, your government bear the responsibility of their death. Just unsure where you stood on the issue since you chose to post your daughter's words on your blog. In trying to straighten it out, I made things more confusing--a true American, huh?

I won't argue the Arabization issue--anyone who comes to this blog has plenty of resources to see and decide for themselves, then use that knowledge to help them judge comments here and elsewhere---or not. Some like Albatroz will just see that some who have written on the issue have names that could indicate they are JEWS, making the whole issue invalid. I could use similar "logic' and say Albatroz is likely a pigheaded bigot, but I won't. I hope you now understand I was in no way trying to infer you were a baathist or that you took part in any atrocities--my point wa that those who ruled your country did do those things and you apparently are OK with that because they didn't come to your house-you were relatively comfortable while those who did oppose suffered-I think that makes one responsible for the events that flow from the actions of ones government if they don't activley oppose it by the best means available and now support those who would return Iraq to those conditions.

Seems you have some chomskyites commenting in support of your mujahadid---that's good, since they have consistently been on the losing side of history.

What's said here by anyone won't matter, of course, but here's my crystal ball prediction of a likely scenario: An affirming vote on the constitution will be followed by a successful election of a legislative body full of politicians who promise to demand American troops leave at the moment the final touches are put on the forming Iraqi armed forces needed to battle the outside forces interfering in Iraq's progress. America will begin withdrawal by spring and have it all but completed by the end of next year with the exception of some trainers and air assets 'still needed'on a few airbases in northern Iraq (Kurdistan). Most of the "resistance" will declare victory and start trying to get their share of the pie even though they clearly lost, because they 'forced' America to leave Iraqi soil (except for those assets still needed of course as Iraq will still have no real air force to defend the borders 'We have no choice! Saddam left us with no viable Air Force!). Many Iraqis will celebrate their defeat of America and continue down a road towards some version of democracy and prosperity with America playing a large part, puncutated with brief periods of brutality while contributing to fighting the war on terror out of their own self interest. The lefties will share in the celebration of the defeat of the great Satan for which they will proclaim as their most recent courageous stand against American hegemony and all will be 'right' with the world as America keeps rolling along, largely unaffected by the yapping at her heels.

Apologism, Yawn? Look it up and apply it to what I have written--step away from the ganga first, mon. It may blow your mind--or whatever ya got.

I suppose the loss of two thousand?? american lives is regarded in your rather cloistered world view as being representative of a largely unaffected reality. It reminds me of someone who views the rape and pillaging of a neighbours family as regrettable but at least it was self contained and didn't encompass the entire street, including my family.

Your prognosis for Iraq reminds me of a Dr. Seus fantasy of an alternative reality in whosville! "An affirming vote on the constitution will be followed by a successful election of a legislative body full of politicians who promise to demand American troops leave at the moment the final touches are put on the forming Iraqi armed forces needed to battle the outside forces interfering in Iraq's progress. America will begin withdrawal by spring and have it all but completed by the end of next year with the exception of some trainers and air assets 'still needed'on a few airbases in northern Iraq (Kurdistan)."

Yes but my daughter is in Iraq says psychdad and I have to attribute some meaning or artificial signifigance to the reality of my country's misadventure!Surely my daughters life wouldn't be jeopardized for the self interests or materialistic goals of a jaded political regime!

Apologists such as your yourself usually exhibit rather feeble attempts to lay moral signifigance and virtue to your countrys invasion of a demonized opponent:

Apologists are often characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric. When used in this context, the term often has a pejorative meaning. The neutralized substitution of "spokesperson" for "apologist" in conversation conveys much the same sense of "partisan presenter with a weighted agenda," with less rhetorical freight. Such as emphasizing your inherent knowledge of Kurdistan and all the goodwill expressed to your children. denying the realities of fallujah, the daily slaughter of innocent civilians, the reality of America turning Iraq into a quagmire, another failed excursion into world domination or positive influence. Another abject failure similar to South East Asia, mindless political agendas and frontier like dillusions. What a sad ass you are!!

Apologism is the metaphysical philosophy that argues that it is wrong for humans to attempt to alter the conditions of life in the mortal sphere of influence. It is opposed to the idea that absolute "progress" is a desirable goal for the pursuit of human endeavors.

I'll admit I had only a vague understanding of the meaning until I looked it up, but I knew it would not apply to me.

You used the word--learn it before doing so next time, Yawn--or don't.

Occupations are normally understood as military invasions which impose themselves on a country through military superiority and intimidation. The population are under threat of reprisal should they not acquiesce to the will of the invader!

That depends what is meant by "population". We have been bred since birth to accept the notions that the people own the government and have the inalienable right to absolve it if it fails to serve them. The concept of majority consent is second nature to us by the time we reach 20. For others, such concepts may seem irrelevant or impratical.

For us "population" means majority concensus amoung all citizens. For others, it might mean consent of the ruling class irrespective of majority opinion. If they percieve themselves as the ruling class, then whatever they say automatically becomes the will of their nation.

Then we get into definitions--I agree lefty has degrees and variations of meaning subject to the views of the person using the term. Most might think it includes too many in number to apply to those I was referring to--but using JEW as Albatroz did is something very different and isn't comparable, in my opinion. I suppose I should have said the Chomsky crowd to be more precise, though that might exclude too few of their number. Still, I see your point.

Marie Antionette would never accept the first interpretation of population. Like you, I would never accept the second. Sometimes I wonder what will happen to the ex-ruling class. It seems that the more desperately they cling to the hope of absolute power the less forgiving le Louisette will become. Life in Amman isn't such a bad deal. However, I do feel sorry for those who follow them but can't afford the second condo. When the pendulum swings back, they'll be the ones that catch the brunt of it.

What a silly, spiteful, pointless post from Madtom.I’m running out of RAM again, so I’ll do a silly, spiteful pointless post just to annoy y’all.(Please forgive me, Truthteller.)I did my bit for democracy a few weeks ago. Here in NZ, the Leader of the Opposition, who nearly became PM, lives somewhere a few hundred metres from me, in an upmarket suburb of Auckland. (Upmarket? Yeah, I know, I must’ve been a Privileged Sunni all along. Silly me, here I was thinking I was just a Lucky Atheist.)Anyway, as we were driving home from the polling booth on election day, I nearly ran over a tall goofy-looking old dude in a suit who stepped out in front of us. My wife swears it was him. I dunno - I was too busy with the anchors.(No minders, no bodyguards, of course - this is civilisation.)So I could’a been an insurgent, I could’a been a terrorist, I could’a been a contender.No matter, he lost without my help, anyway.But honestly, Truthteller, all this ranting about democracy from a country where it all depends on who has the greatest wealth and tells the best lies, doesn’t it get up your nose?Does Iraq really need to follow that model? There are better places in the world.

News just to hand:"Iraq has issued arrest warrants against the defense minister and 27 other officials from the U.S.-backed government of former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi over the alleged disappearance or misappropriation of $1 billion in military procurement funds."I mean, see what I mean? These corrupt clowns were the first choice of the US government for someone to run Iraq.Talk about the blind leading the partially-sighted!

I find it amusing that Strykerdad, who very probably feels it justified for immigration officers to single out Middle Eastern looking people for tough interrogation at US borderposts, who might even find it justifiable that British police shot a Brazilian man just because he was a little darker than usual, now accuses me of bigotry just because I find a text on Saddam Hussein writen by a jew as somewhat less than credible. I happen to have - like so many people in my country - jewish ancestors, so that I would find it idiotic to be biased against jews. But I would have to be very naive to believe without questioning a jewish opinion about Arabs in geral, and about Saddam Hussein in particular.

a couple of things:1) actually ... the US pick was some guy called pachachi .. or parchesi ... or picacha .. (or something like that). The iraqi council refused the US choice and put forward allawi, which bremer accepted. Then when the US started to like allawi, list 169 won and allwai was out. now it looks like list169 has been somewhat inept and allawi stands a good chance of getting back in. (i wonder whatever happenned to that pachachi guy?)

2) take the warrants with a grain of sand. election time draws near. it may be true and/or it may be a smear campaign.

Alby, why don't you defend your own statements instead of speculating on how I 'probably feel"? NZ has covered what I would 'no doubt say' and think already. I don't use a JEWISH sounding screenname, so anyone can read what I write and decide for themselves whether my words are legitimate or not, and form their own opinions and comment on them if they feel moved to do so. Or ignore them completely, makes no difference to me.

To answer your question "Would you believe anything writen by a nazi about jews?...", I would certainly use that fact to inform my opinion, but that wouldn't neccesarily make some or any of what was written invalid. If a Nazi wrote about the process of exterminating Jews, I would think that might lend the account some credibility. A better question might be, would you believe anything written by a JEW about nazis or statements made by a Kurd against Baathists? In case you have forgotten, this is what you wrote:

Strykerdad,Do you use an article writen by someone called Jeffrey GOLDBERG as prove against Iraqi treatment of Kurds? Could it be that a Jewish writer might have a less than objective view on things happening in Iraq? Or even less than truthfull view on those questions? Would you believe anything writen by a nazi about jews?...

[madtom] “They were never bothered by saddam either, so that should tell you something about their motives and intentions.”

Uh, do you KNOW how many assassination plots Hussein survived? It wasn’t through lack of trying that Iraqis were unable to get rid of him

[bruno] " it seems that Dancewater has forgotten about […] "

[madtom] “Apparently many things, not to mention the attack on Kuwait, and ten years of targeting our planes, the funding of terrorism in Israel, to name a few.”

Madtom, if you ingested more vitamins, fish and other brain food, you might remember.

Remember that the Kuwaiti invasion was dealt with, and wrapped up in 1991. Iraq is STILL paying reparations to the filthy-rich Kuwaitis.

You might also remember that we have already discussed the No Fly Zones, and the LACK of any specific UN Resolutions mandating their formation. Iraq was FULLY justified at shooting at your aircraft.

Now, the terrorism – against – Israel allegation can be debated. We can debate as to who the real terrorists of the Israel – Palestinian saga are. We can debate as to whether being friends of Palestinians is a just casus belli for the invasion of Iraq by a third party. We can debate as to whether Iraqi money paid as compensation to the families of Palestinians who had their houses demolished in retaliation by Israelis is really direct material support for ‘terrorism’.

Most of all, however, we can debate your cluelessness of the subject matter and your short memory.

Moron99 --

[m99] “a terrorist is someone who intentionally targets innocent civillians with violence as a means to achieve political goals.”

Thank you for admitting that the US is a terrorist state. It comes as a shock, I know. If you read the link I provided earlier, you would also have read about the US wanting to make Sunnis ‘pay’ for providing support to the Resistance. Gee, I wonder what that means? Gee, I wonder where the corpses found in desert areas are coming from?

Strykerdad --

I rather like your prognosis.

My outlook is rather bleaker, where the US remains for as long as it can to ‘protect’ its ‘interests’ from ‘terrorists’ (ie – anybody opposed to the wholesale subsuming of Iraq into the US sphere of influence) and sponsors bloody massacres either directly or indirectly. I see death squads. False flag operations. Search and destroy a la Fallujah, while an impotent and divided Iraqi parliament squabble over the crumbs. I also see the costs for the war mount up continuously, and the oil revenues insufficient to cover even a fraction of the cost. The tit for tat casualties and bloodletting will continue unabated, and more and more of the limbless results of your policies will be seen around your posh malls. Eventually some catalysing incident – maybe a US base gets overrun, or a two ton carbomb makes it into the Green Zone, or another Shia rebellion – will cause public support in the US to collapse, at which point you will turn tail and run. Iraq, of course, will be absolutely shattered, but given another season of “Survivor” Americans will have forgotten all about it.

"Wednesday, October 05, 2005Dillemas I was asked a question the other day by a person interested in Iraqi politics. He asked me what benefits are there for the Sunni Arabs of Iraq in the new constitution. I couldn’t really answer. It made me think, unlike others I try to look at things from all sides and I am using my mindset as an Arab Sunni writing this article.

From the creation of the modern day Iraq, the ruling powers have almost always been from the Arab Sunni minority. They have helped balance the complicated demographics of the Western created borders of what is Iraq. The differing ethnic and religious groups in Iraq made it hard to control the country so an iron fist was needed. I can speak for the last 30 years, Arab Sunnis look at the 60’s and 70’s as good times in Iraq and other Iraqis do the same. Racism did exist but it was more anti-Kurdish than sectarian, but that’s a separate issue entirely. In schools and universities they were taught that there is no region called Kurdistan and instead it’s Northern Iraq. This is in essence the denial of the existence of a nation separate from the Arab nation. These ideas stick in one’s head, that’s why until today you will never hear Ibrahim Ja’afari utter the word Kurdistan. He was the first Iraqi politician to proudly have the Ba’athist flag behind him. Those who may personally know him know that prior to returning to Iraq he was in London, working in religious activities that really didn’t have much to do with politics. If you understand Arabic you would realise that he spends and hour answering a question without actually answering it. Good knowledge of the Arabic vocabulary does not make one a good decision maker and leader.

Back to the topic at hand, the Kurds and Shi’ites were oppressed but still there were people from both groups that preferred money and stood with the Ba’ath. It was Iraqis of all types that committed atrocities against Iraqis, and today it’s the same story. Nothing much has really changed sadly and the leaders worry about elections and constitutions and religion when the important issues are neglected. I mean how is it that in Lebanon a whole UN team was sent to try and find out the killer of Hariri yet it’s not possible to do that in Iraq? I mean just how many people are out there killing daily? The numbers are not decreasing.

If I was a Sunni Arab and saw today’s events in Iraq I would definitely be heart broken and I probably would wish the return of Saddam. This is due to the lack of Sunni Arab participation in the current government and municipalities, a mistake made during the past elections not necessarily by choice since the dangerous areas they reside in had low voter turnout cause of terrorist threats in addition to the boycott. The concept of power sharing is new and takes a lot of time to adjust to after years of being in control of everything. The worries are purely economical and rightly so since the middle parts of Iraq are not where the oil fields are located and that is no secret. Therefore even those that don’t engage in violent acts help the terrorists by being so anti-government in everything, from appearing on TV to discussions with friends. I am not saying all Arab Sunnis think this way, but the majority do. Ask an Iraqi Arab Sunni about changing the flag, ask him about reversing ethnic cleansing, and ask him about the Shiite rituals. If he were honest you would see that the mindset is still there and that is why it’s hard.

When you lose everything you had and have to start from scratch living with people that you know suffered at the hands of Saddam, you have fears and suspicions, it’s the whole process a sector of Sunni Arabs are against, because they realise that for them Iraq will never be the way it was in the past. The worry is that the Kurds and Shiites refrain from revenge. As Lebanon learnt that won’t solve anything. It’s a shame that the leaders of Iraq today didn’t stand united, after all those terrible years where people lost their life under Saddam and his cronies.

P.S. Saddam used to be proud of Salaheedine Al Ayoobee the famour KURDISH warrior that fought for Islam, and took pride in the fact he hailed from Tikrit generations ago. Tell me how is that he was Kurdish and from Tikrit? Then these animals accuse the Kurds of trying to grab land. Pathetic indeed when people preach without any background or history on the topics they discuss."

"If as you say it's our "unspeakable brutality" they would be attacking us, not you."

As always, Tom, you are in serious need of a reality check. Here's a news flash for you: The overwhelming majority of attacks by the so-called "insurgents" are against occupation forces, not against civilians. The small handful of attacks against civilians are a tiny minority of the average of 60-70 attacks that take place daily.

And of course, you hear almost nothing about the massively brutal attacks by the U.S. that take place daily against Iraqi residential neighborhoods towns, cities, and villages.

hurria, the day of the sunni is over. the choice before you is whether tommorrow should be the day of the shia or the day of the iraqi. Ironically, it is not the shia who will decide. They lack sufficient numbers and resoluteness of purpose to succeeed against both kurd and sunni. It will be the sunni who decide. If they refuse to be iraqi before sunni, then tommorrow will become the day of the shia. You are foolish to abandon tommorrrow because of what happenned yesterday.

Lynette I'm sure Saddam knew Saladin was a Kurd. He had Kurdish Ministers. Some Kurds collaborated with the US as did some Shia. Some did not. The resistance is not targetting people because of the ethnic/religious background. The Resistance is targetting the Coalition

EVERY Arab and every Muslim knows that Saladdin was a Kurd, and no one cares one iota except silly, abysmally ignorant Arab hating Americans like Lynette who think they can deflate us by throwing that fact into our faces.

Saladdin did what he did AS A MUSLIM, not as a Kurd or an Arab or anything else.

ah but hurria, when you strip away the layers of false information that is what the fighting is really about. The despot and the caliphate joining forces to oppose democracy. The sunni arab caught in the middle with every jackal threatening death if he does not do as told. He holds the deciding vote and they push him about like a pawn in their struggles for power.

The war is lost Hurria. In recent letters Al Queda has tacitly accepted the eventuality of military defeat and is encouraging their people in Iraq to start laying the foundation for a politcal coup or overthrow from the inside. The killing and bombing and sabatauging and assasinating is not working. There are too many Iraqi who are not "true Iraqi" and too few that are. Specifically, 60% of Iraq is shia and 20% is kurd. Under democracy they are promised 80% of the wealth and power. If the insurgents win, they will get nothing. What system do you think they will support? The day of the despot is over. The choice for the average sunni is no longer that of despot versus democracy. It is whether to accept 20% in peace or to continue fighting towards nothing.

I see Moron99 is still foaming at the mouth about wicked Sunni. I must confess this has me very puzzled.I have some trouble understanding Middle Eastern history (I tend to fall asleep when reading it) but as far as I can make out: in the area that is now Iraq, if there is indeed a Privileged Sunni Elite, this is mainly because the Ottomans who ruled the area for several centuries, and the British who did so for several decades, favoured and encouraged exactly this situation. Hurria will doubtless correct my miserable misconceptions, but anyway: I don’t understand what’s so wrong about present-day Sunni being what history has made them. I mean, I don’t despise present-day white Americans because of what their ancestors did to the blacks. I’ll give it a try if you want me to, but shouldn’t you also be directing some of your outrage at the Turks and the Brits. (The first thing they did in 1921, after they’d finished drawing lines in the sand, was to import a foreign Hashemite Sunni king to rule the place, isn’t that right?)I saw someone compare the Iraqi Sunni to the whites in Apartheid South Africa. Bruno would know all about that, but it doesn’t sound right to me: far as I can make out, if he’s not wearing some kind of identifying costume, you can’t tell a Shia from a Sunni from a Kurd just by looking at him. Is that right?(Similar situation to here in NZ, where after 150 years of integration and intermarriage there’s meant to be few if any pure-blooded Maori left. Basically, you are Maori if you’ve got any Maori blood, and if you want to be. The British Lions Rugby team played a match, as always, against a Maori team during their recent tour - they lost, too, for the first time ever, Pommie sods. The thing was, there were only two players in the Maori team with recognisably Maori names - the rest were called things like Bill Jones, Fred White, or Moron 101. I gather there are large fully-mixed areas in Baghdad.) My other misunderstanding is my delusion that the Muslim world is 90% Sunni, and only 10% Shia, and that the Shia are concentrated in Southern Iraq, Eastern Arabia, and Persia (Iran.)The majority of them are therefore presumably Iranian, and they’re meant to be the rabidly anti-American arch-enemy, aren’t they? Cheerleading for democracy is all very well, but this fervent pro-Shia bias seems kinda counterproductive. If Southern Iraq does secede, won’t they (and their oil) probably become part of a Shia Greater Iranian Alliance, or something?All very puzzling. Now I’ve got a headache. Not from trying to understand the Middle East, from trying to understand Moron’s thinking. Shucks.

Strykerdad,May I remind you that you were the one who felt it necessary to have your views supported by an article on arab questions writen by a jewish author? If you do your own thinking, why the need for assistance from such a doubtful source? Would you find an article on American war crimes writen by Osana bin Laden a credible source of information?

Lynette, your anti-Arab, anti-Muslim racism and bigotry are as clear as is your ignorance of both.

And regarding Saladdin, I responded to Janice, not to anything Sami wrote. If I find the time I will respond to Sami's remarks, which are full of mistakes, and do show a lack of any real knowledge of what he was talkig about.

I have read that such a policy of revoking property ownership rights for those unwilling to declare themselves Arab, but I haven't seen any English translations of Iraqi Modern History to confirm that which might be an acceptable source to you"TT:You haven't seen any thing to confirm this LIE because it is a LIE.

I posted an excerpt from the article so TT could see that I hadn't just pulled my statement out of my albatroz. So I went back and found several sources and used the one that contained the most information.

The author is on the staff of the New Yorker magazine and it was the most detailed article I read with many quotes from people he interviewed in Iraq, many of them Kurdish--the fact that the author's name sounded JEWISH didn't factor into my thinking---unlike you who apparently 'thinks' it is the ONLY factor to consider. You and I take a different approach--let's leave it at that. There are plenty of other sources that parallel and support his reporting, but I refuse to vet them for their Jewishness to suit your personal requirements. Besides, they could have Gentile or Arabic names and still be Jewish, couldn't they? They are a sneaky bunch. I decline to engage you any further on the subject since you seem to do a perfectly good job of embarrassing yourself without my assistance.

There's 5 million sunni. Only a tiny fraction of them are "wicked sunni". If anything, I feel sorry for the average sunni. The average shia is relatively free to speak out. The average sunni is not free to speak out. If he speaks out against the government, then he is targeted as an insurgent. If he speaks out against the insurgent, then he is targeted as a collaborator. He can do nothing but stay quiet and pray for better days ahead.

If you are losing on the facts, then pound principle. If you are losing on principle, then pound the facts. If you are losing on principle and facts, then pound the table. Hurria - are your hateful fists sore and red? You've been proven wrong time and again by the pro-Iraqi democracy movement. But you come back again and again, finally, in exasperation, labeling those who don't agree with you as racist. Your table is losing its legs, and the judge is ready to throw you in prison for contempt of court. Come back when you can start reasoning again. You've already spewed enough hate for a 100 blogs. No one takes you seriously anymore. You are irrelevant. Now, please, put your money where your mouth is and go join the resistance and fight the Americans. Doesn't interest you? Well, that doesn't surprise me. We know you have no backbone. Prove me wrong and maybe we'll, at least, respect you.

"Would you find an article on American war crimes writen by Osana bin Laden a credible source of information?" says Albatroz. Okay, so now all jewish people are tantamount to Osama Bin Laden? How can anything you say be taken seriously, now that we know your tendency to argue with completely ignorant and massively generalized characterizations. Please leave this board.

"Remember that the Kuwaiti invasion was dealt with, and wrapped up in 1991. Iraq is STILL paying reparations to the filthy-rich Kuwaitis."

Wrapped up? I would say that today that issue is behind us now. We will not hold the Iraqi people responsible for the acts of a dictator. But that flight of fancy of it being all wrapped up in 91 is your fantasy that we are not bound by.

"You might also remember that we have already discussed the No Fly Zones, and the LACK of any specific UN Resolutions mandating their formation. Iraq was FULLY justified at shooting at your aircraft."

Your memory is falling you, we are not bound by the UN, we do not depend on the UN for our security, nor is the UN capable of providing us that. It would in no way "justify" targeting out war plane, which is an act of war, and a violation of the surrender document. And something that kept our allies on edge, thinking that saddam was rearming and getting ready to strike AGAIN.

"Now, the terrorism – against – Israel allegation can be debated...."

The time for that debate is past. Saddam got in our face once too many times and now he's history, like your "debates".

Moron99"There's 5 million Sunni."How do you know this? As I understand it, there hasn’t been a proper census in Iraq for many years. Certainly not one that targeted religious affiliation, or degrees of piety. What about the 5 million Kurds? They are Sunni, last I heard.If you came to NZ, you could doubtless ascertain that there are 600,000 "Protestants," and 500,000 "Catholics," theoretically, from Census data. (And a million atheists or agnostics, thankfully.) But you couldn’t pick them out on the street, they’re all Kiwis.I wonder how many in Iraq think like Truthteller - when I asked him if he was Sunni or Shia, he answered "I am Iraqi."I strongly suspect, and I think Hurria and Truthteller would support me, that you are greatly oversimplifying a complex situation.And possibly backing the wrong horse. It really doesn’t matter to me, I’m not involved, but I wouldn’t respond favourably to anyone who told me not to shave, or what my wife and daughters could wear in public. I wouldn’t give a damn how "democratically elected" they were.I’d take the liberal secular educated dudes any time.

"As always, Tom, you are in serious need of a reality check. Here's a news flash for you: The overwhelming majority of attacks by the so-called "insurgents" are against occupation forces, not against civilians."

Reminds me of Baghdad Bob's "there are no tanks in Baghdad", sure Hurria you can believe anything you want to believe, just don't look in the morgue.Then again maybe it's just a little problem with their aim, and they are actually targeting the coalition, but the fact is they are killing civilians, unarmed civilians. Somehow unlike you I find it hard to believe that they mistook a vegetable market for a military installation. Maybe they have seen too many movies "Get Smart" where the vegetables are really allied rocket launchers.

Well said "new iraq" - this racist anti-Kurd and anti-Shiite Hurria attacks the poster as she most often cannot reason the facts or the principles behind the post. If that does not work, she asks the blog owner to delete the poster's comments or terminate the poster. Her hateful rantings in support of that marketplace bomber Zarqawi has polluted this blog.

So New Iraq (curious nick...) wants me expelled. Presumably in the name of freedom and democracy... And all because he chose to think that I was equating jews with Osama bin Laden... Had he thought it out he would have seen that I was merely saying that jewish people's general dislike of Arabs made them little credible commentators of Arab affairs. Just like Osama bin Laden's hatred of the US makes him a little credible critic of America. By the way, why is it that criticism of any person is considered admissible, except if that person is jewish? Is criticizing a Jew tantamount to anti-semitism?

"Lynette I'm sure Saddam knew Saladin was a Kurd. He had Kurdish Ministers. Some Kurds collaborated with the US as did some Shia. Some did not. The resistance is not targetting people because of the ethnic/religious background. The Resistance is targetting the Coalition"

I think this is an important revelation from the other side. It's the first time I hear one of them admit openly that Iraq and Iraqi's are part of the coalition. Kind of makes you wonder how they use the word "occupiers", how can Iraqi's be occupiers? But maybe I now understand their retoric about "The overwhelming majority of attacks by the so-called "insurgents" are against occupation forces".

New Iraq, love this comment, truly: "Hopefully, someone from Iraq will read this and get a better sense of who Americans are and how they truly want the best for the Iraqi people.I am from Honolulu, Hawaii - the Aloha State, Hawaii 5-O. I am an attorney. Aside from this, I prefer not to reveal other information about myself."

I certainly, for one, have a better sense of who you are. Love the legal references, "Your table is losing its legs, and the judge is ready to throw you in prison for contempt of court" Spoken like a man who truly understands jurisprudence. Defining someone as "truly" ignorant might be a tad inflammatory, and ordering them off this site slightly presumptuous, given that it apparently is yet to be your domain or something over which you have proprietory rights, but as a lawyer I'd assume you'd at least have some inclination comprehending the subtleties and meaning of proprietary.

regarding your offer of respect, I'm sure no one really gives a shit what you think or how you're prepared to characterize people, generally I've heard most lawyers defined as spineless bottom feeders, maybe you're an exception to that rule!! But you certainly portray yourself in garbage sucking terms!

MadTom, you've just got to respect a man who's totally assimilated within a country that treated his anscestors with such regard. Some might call it posturing, others a denial of faith or heritage. Either way you're probably less savory than the other war mongerers who flock like vulures to the next road kill! As convincingly attractive as a lyingnette cheerleader or a fathers sad song of self indulgent pride!

Yawn, although I enjoy silly arguments as much as anyone, you are too damn funny to provoke a real effort. Take another toke, Marley, and please consider putting a little more effort into it.

Though I admittedly am far from a great writer, may I offer a small alternate turn of a phrase in your closing statement? Instead of ...father's sad song of self indulgent pride you might try...psychedad's sad song of self satisfied supercilliousness. Then you could hit the bong and try to say it three times out loud as you exhale. Might improve your mood as well as your thinking.

In case others wonder why I bring that up, Yawn once put some effort into trying to convince me I should consider Rastafarianism and prescribed ganga as the solution to the world's problems--makes me laugh every time he posts something about me.

GREAT counter. Though your logic is off, you do use nice, pretty words.

I've decided to ban you from this site as well. Now please do not post here again, or else I will cast a voodoo spell on you.

Since you apparently know who I am, whatever that means, why not tell me a little about yourself? Where are you from and what do you do for a living? By they way, I TOTALLY agree with your attorney characterization. They are spineless bottom feeders, whatever that means (sounds pretty). Fortunately, I'm not one of them anymore - on to bigger and better things in Virginia now. By the way, that blog is from back in March (there is a date there). I would have appreciated a response back then.

I know exactly what you are saying. You categorically believe that Jews hate Arabs. Therefore, according to your logic, any Jew's opinion is automatically biased against Arabs. So how could anything that any Jew ever says be considered valid? If we apply the same reasoning in reverse, that Arabs categorically hate Jews (and Americans) then the same applie - anything that any Arab says is automatically biased - no? Again, saying things like this doesn't help to end the misunderstanding, which is the ultimately cause of the war.

TT, I always enjoy Najma's posts because she has a sharp mind and a good writing style. She probably wants to go into another field but I do think she could have a career a commentator for newspapers. And I don't blame her for how she feels. She (and you) are living in Mosul, in the middle of a war zone between Americans and the IDF on one hand and terrorists on the other and civilians pay the price. For months now I've been hoping things would get better in your city but they don't seem to, even if things ARE better in other places in Iraq.

But I have to agree with Waldschrat when he takes exception to Najma saying she is with the mujideen. I know you said (and I believe you are correct) that the American vision of the mujadi (terrorists) are not what you think of when you say the word. But it still bothers me. It seems to me that there are very few people who would meet your definition of the word. The people who are killing American soldiers are not usually "Islamic patriots" but Islamic fanatics (mostly from outside Iraq) from Al-Queda and ex-Saddamites. None of them would meet your definition of the mujadeen. So who would? Would the Iraqi Police? Or how about the IDF?

I must also say if you don't mind that I miss the Najma who used to write about Aya and who was excited with life even if she was afraid of what was to come. This is also the case with dear HNK who sounded so happy coming back from Syria and no writes in such a depressed way. I know there's not a lot to be happy about but I would feel terrible if such smart girls as your daughters who will be needed in the educated professional class that will bring Iraq to the future have lost hope. Hope is the greatest thing Iraqis have and what the terrorists fear most (that why they bomb so much near elections).

New Iraq,I sympathize with your views, but I think there should be a different appreciation of the feelings of the oppressed and the feelings of the oppressor. I can understand why Arabs hate Americans and Sionists (not Jews), but I fail to understand why Americans and Sionists hate Arabs. After all who took whose land?...Of course some oppressed sometimes choose to join the oppressor, in order to profit from the oppression (Strykerdad is a good example of this), but we don't think much of those, do we?...

Ok, ok, Strykerdad. I was a bit out of line there. But you are American Indian, are you not? Do you really think that your heritage is properly preserved in the American society? Shouldn't you be a bit more sympathetic towards the Iraqis' feelings? After all they are trying to succeed where your ancestors failed: staying free to live according to their traditions.

Ah well, Iraq now goes into "lock down" mode for another "turning point." Snark, as Bruno says.The main viewpoint coming across on this Blog, it seems, is that of Strykerdad, Moron99, Madtom, etc. (Is there something just a little unsettling about those names? What sane individual would name themself after an instrument of war?) And they are saying, "Look, Truthteller, we are going to impose our version of "freedom, democracy and oil supply" on you, whether you like it or not. Even if that means we support Iranian-oriented Shia fundamentalists."Now these voices are coming from a nation which accounts for over half of the world’s military spending, the most unequal nation on earth, where 5% of the population control 95% of the wealth, with the highest homicide rate in the developed world, third world standards of infant mortality, an obesity epidemic while half the world is starving, a sterile "strip mall" culture that contributes nothing to civilisation, where corporate corruption is standard business practice, and deluded religious fundamentalists only slightly less nutty than Osama himself are running its Government and Courts. And a nation deeply in debt to the Chinese, of all people.And a nation which, despite its fabled power, seems to be unable to really do anything about the mess it has made in Iraq. Just doing Vietnam all over again, but it’s a dry heat this time.And when a small girl’s voice from Iraq says "Just walk a mile in my shoes, if you finish that alive, then and only then, come and tell me what you think," they go apeshit at her.Go, girl: you go.

[johninnz] “The majority of them are therefore presumably Iranian, and they’re meant to be the rabidly anti-American arch-enemy, aren’t they? Cheerleading for democracy is all very well, but this fervent pro-Shia bias seems kinda counterproductive. If Southern Iraq does secede, won’t they (and their oil) probably become part of a Shia Greater Iranian Alliance, or something?”

This is precisely the thing that worries me. Under a ‘democracy’ the Shia win big time. Or, more specifically, the Iranian created exile groups like SCIRI and Dawa win big time. That means, unless Iran is removed from the equation, a realpolitik view means that the US has just spent a fortune handing the Iranians their greatest victory yet, without moderating the Iranian stance one iota.

Is this really an outcome acceptable to the ideologues in Wasgington at the moment? The ideologues who have already stated that Iraq is but a stepping stone to Iran?

The neocons are hardly people who are shy in spending other people’s blood to achieve their objectives. My fear is that sooner or later the conflict will be expanded to Iran, in a bid to knock over the last skittle. Iran, of course is a much bigger bite than poor ol’ sanctions-impoverished Iraq, which the US can already hardly swallow. If that happens, look to seeing the blood run for many years to come.

[New Iraq] “If you are losing on principle and facts, then pound the table.”

Now that you mention it, I notice that you didn’t provide much in the way of either facts or principles yourself. I guess you are also one of the cheap table pounders…?

[madtom]

[bruno] “Remember that the Kuwaiti invasion was dealt with, and wrapped up in 1991”[madtom] “But that flight of fancy of it being all wrapped up in 91 is your fantasy that we are not bound by.”

Facts? No? OK, that’s what I thought. Another vapid statement by Madtom.

[bruno] “the LACK of any specific UN Resolutions mandating their formation. Iraq was FULLY justified at shooting at your aircraft.”[madtom] “we are not bound by the UN […] It would in no way "justify" targeting out war plane, which is an act of war, and a violation of the surrender document. ”

Now this is the reason that you get on my nerves. You are a BIG IGNORAMUS who spouts off as though he actually knew something. But you don’t.

FYI, the US * is * bound to the UN Charters and the 1991 Ceasefire. It is bound by the strength of the word of honour of the United States, since YOUR country endorsed those documents UNDER the auspices of the UN. Now, I agree with you that the word of honour of the US is more and more worthless every day, and that yes, if you want to reject the UN, you can. Of course, that makes your country a liar and an oathbreaker, but hey, what’s a few more spots on a butcher’s apron anyway?

You are correct in ONE aspect of your statement, in that Iraq was supposed to cease hostile actions against the US and the other Kuwaiti allies. Of course, the Ceasefire ALSO stipulated that all parties should withdraw their troops and hardware from Iraqi territory, and that the sovereignty of Iraq was affirmed. Now, given that the US planes WERE OVER IRAQ when they were targeted, it means that America WAS in fact the breaker of the Ceasefire in the first place. And under UN law (A51), a sovereign country has the right to self defence. Yes, that means Iraq.

[bruno] "Now, the terrorism – against – Israel allegation can be debated...."[madtom] “The time for that debate is past. Saddam got in our face once too many times and now he's history, like your "debates".”

Ah, I see. Might is right. Screw justice, right and wrong. If you have the power, you make the law, in Madtomlandia. You wouldn’t be a big fan of Castro by any chance? Sounds like it. The rest of the world left caveman logic like that behind a long time ago.

[strykerdad] “Support world peace or I'll kill you! ...”

Heh heh. Something amusing from the dour Strykerdad is a nice change of pace …

Jack Bennett –

[jb] “The people who are killing American soldiers are not usually "Islamic patriots" but Islamic fanatics (mostly from outside Iraq) from Al-Queda and ex-Saddamites. None of them would meet your definition of the mujadeen. So who would? Would the Iraqi Police? Or how about the IDF?”

Jack, the fact of the matter is, a hodge podge of Iraqis are fighting the Americans. Are there Ba’athists and Salafists amongst them? Certainly. But there are also Shia, secular patriots and so forth who are doing the same.

The numbers of ‘foreign fighters’ are around 5% of the Resistance. Some reports give a maximum of 10%. I really don’t see the problem, though. The US employs mercenaries through companies such as Blackwater etc. – and they are well known for their callous disregard of Iraqi lives. Yet, nobody seems to complain about these mercenaries, some of which are ‘foreign’ in the sense of ‘not American’. Americans, in case you never realised, are ‘foreign’ to Iraq.

In any case, railing about Ba’athists is hardly any good when the US has hired a whole bunch of Ba’athists in the form of Adnan Thavit and his bunch of goons. They are bona fide thugs whose exploits have apparently been broadcast on US sponsored Iraqi TV channels in a bid to (a) intimidate patriotic Iraqis and (b) distort the image of the resistance. Railing about Ba’athists is also hardly any good when the US has made a big fuss about the dangers of ‘de-Ba’athification’ of the various ministries, having rehired those Ba’athists who would work for them.

Ok, ok, Strykerdad. I was a bit out of line there. But you are American Indian, are you not? Do you really think that your heritage is properly preserved in the American society? Shouldn't you be a bit more sympathetic towards the Iraqis' feelings? After all they are trying to succeed where your ancestors failed: staying free to live according to their traditions.

You obviously know nothing of Native American heritage. Those who are oppressed, choose to be oppressed today. We are and were human beings and sufferred as we made others suffer as have all people's who have survived with some collective identity over time. Don't buy the romanticized Disney version of native American life. We were both enslaved and enslavers. Victims and victimizers. What we have never been is truly defeated. There was a period there where we wallowed in our pity after being forced to sell our land and relocate. We call that a retreat, not a defeat. We are on a long list of nations to have sent the French into full retreat. We fought alongside America often (except for that unfortunate time known as the Civil War where most, but not all, chose to fight with the Confederacy, but that wasn't a collective tribal decision) and demanded we be called American afterwards. We also had one of the earliest forms of elected representative governments known to have existed which continues today. The American Constitution includes some of of what we developed. We enjoy all the rights and freedoms of all Americans whose flag we proudly fly and fight for when called upon for the last 100 years. In some aspects, we have more rights than most Americans, which I am a little uncomfortable with personally.

But if you want to learn more, please come to our new $150 million dollar heritage museum and don't forget to stop by any of our gift shops and casinos, motels, travel centers, chocolate factories or any other of our diverse tribal businesses netting well over a billion dollars a year that are overseen by our duly elected tribal leaders--and don't forget your wallet! We can use all the oppression we can get. We accept alll major credit cards and can offer you a loan in one of our bank branches conveniently located throughout or territorial nation. Oppression? Bring it on White boy!

Iraqis lack that enduring collective identity as a nation, so you must mean Arabs as a whole when you speak of people's with whom I should identify. I can see some of our old struggles in those of Arabs, I also see them in the struggles of Jews. Especailly so among the Kurds. I can see them in all peoples throughout history. I also see many of our worst traditions we have left behind still going strong among many of the Arabs, though not limited to them. Let's face it, brutal oppression, tribal warfare, false pride and archaic beliefs that prevent beneficial reforms and advancement in the world as it now exists are things best left behind, if not forgotten. I'm grateful we figured that out. I'm grateful we found oursleves in America, formed by great men who left a system that eventually allowed us to realise our own potential. I'll be grateful when more of the world's people throw off the things that hold them back, too, for the sake of their own and mine as well. That doesn't mean they have to become Americanized, just civilised. (yes, I said it--some of you may live in the cradle, but you are long past due the time when you should have gotten out and walked).

NZ--What sane individual would name themself after an instrument of war?)Fist off, one man's insturment of war is anothers instrument of liberation. And even Strykers can be used in doing humanitarian work in the midst of war--even TT would acknowledge that. But...Do your ever sit and argue with yourself? You make it so easy, you should try it sometime. Aren't you the same guy who proudly recounted his nation's participation in wars against tyranny and extolled the greatness of the men of the American 101st Airborne? Were they killing people with pillows and white doves, and if they were, weren't those pillows and doves still weapons of war? Now days, I think that is about all your nation has to fight a war, but I'll bet your 'armed forces' would love to have some Strykers. If you had your own at risk, you'd demand it. Cheaper to let America watch your back, though, as NZ has well learned. How many carriers and choppers is NZ providing to the people effected by tsunami and earthquake today? Weapons of war are what has allowed your little corner to produce the kind of arrogance and condescension that makes you you. You take far too much for granted, or so it seems. History has a way of reminding folks, you'll see, or those who follow you will. Liberty and peace are not natural states and those who experience it long enough to forget that are rare and do so only because others make it possible. History takes a vacation for some of us at times, but it always comes back to kick you in the sack. Better to be in a Stryker when the boot comes your way.

Strykerdad,If you weren't such an arrogant American piece of manure (no offense!), so sure of yourself and so contemptuous of others, I think I would have enjoyed meeting you personally! You definitely have a sense of humour, which is something I have a soft spot for...

But on what concerns Native Americans, I once drove through the Navajo land, and I must say Navajos didn't look that free or prosperous to me. Is your tribe the rule or the exception?

you realize that the iranian backed shia only win if the sunni do not participate. Their strategy is simple. As the new government is built they strive to fill its institutions with people and groups sympathetic to the Iranian regime. To this end, they provide insurgents with covert support in order to keep sunni leaders occupied with weapons instead of parliment votes. To draw a metaphor, the iranians supply the sunni with stones to throw at the front of the government buildings while they are busily moving people in through the back door.

The real battle for power in Iraq starts in January irrespective of the constitutional outcome. I expect to see an increasing number of assasinations in the south. They will naturally be blamed on shia vs. sunni, but in reality it will be the sadrists and badrists trying to eliminate political competitors regardless of sect. If they can eliminate all competition ahead of elections then they will secure the south as a power base. Meanwhile, back in Bagdhad, a new parliment will take shape. If there are an adequate number of sunni chairs, then the secular shia will form a new (detante style) alliance with the sunni representatives. It will be sufficient to block expansion of the badrist/sadrist but insufficient to simply eliminate it. The deciding votes will then be either from the kurds in parliment or voters who support sadr/badr but follow sistani. My personal suspicion is that sistani will drop some hints and then fall silent at the appropriate time to eliminate the sadrist quest for a mullocracy. Politics is a dirty business, isn't it?

Alby--gee, thanks...I think. Frankly I would be more concerned if you didn't find me arrogant and contemptuous which makes me....comfortable with myself and the ideals I hold as true.

To answer your question--There are hundreds of tribes and each has their own issues. Navajos have never been prosperous, due largely to their geography. But even they have begun to capitalize on what they do have available. Too many Indians have grown up in a defeatist environment and have become dependent upon the American government for their day to day existence, not unlike many other segments of the American population not limited to race. Which is the way the US government wanted it for Native Americans for a time. There was an effort to destroy the tribal governments during the early 1900's to integrate individuals into the American society. And it was successful to varying degrees. Navajos are as free to leave NM and go anywhere and do anything as are any other American citizens. If they choose to remain, that is their choice and I respect it, especailly those who work to make it a more prosperous place.

There has been a resurgence of tribes over the last two decades (which, ironically to most people, was begun by the Reagan administration who turned over much of the tribal administration back to the tribes themselves and out of the hands of the federal government). Some tribes are now largely self sufficient, but the weaning process hasn't been uniformly successful. It is remarkable how many 'whites' suddenly discovered their Native American roots when it became profitable. It's become ridiculous in the North eastern states.

Did the US government give most tribes a royal screwing? Certainly, but when viewed from the overall experience of people throughout human history, we are very fortunate to be where we are. Wallowing in the injustices of the distant past hasn't gotten anyone anywhere---I don't care where one finds oneself.

johninnz "probably become part of a Shia Greater Iranian Alliance, or something?”"

(bruno) "Under a ‘democracy’ the Shia win big time"

You people could not have a more racist tone to your writing. Those stupid Shi'a they don't know there Iraqi and a soon as they get the chance there going to run to Iran. Something needs to be done to keep those stupid good for nothing shi'a in line.TT you really should read carefully the tings your allies write about your countrymen, read carefully. with allies like that you don't need enemies.

"Facts? No? OK, that’s what I thought"

The facts are all "wrapped up" bruno there's no facts were your concerned, what facts did you offer, the war as all "wrapped up" in 91. Yet you want me to offer, I don't now what. How about the fly zones, the Shi'a uprising an saddams brutal response "Today there are no more Shi'a" yea sounds really "wrapped up", the ten years of cat an mouse, saddam placing anti aircraft batteries in shi'a cities and population centers, near schools, mosque, and anyplace else were he could leverage the damage to his advantage, but lets call that all wrapped up and forget all about it. Not to mention saddam hording the staples of everyday life, while millions starved and went without, he built palaces. But no there are no facts there are no lessons there is just your flights of fantasy.

"the US * is * bound to the UN Charters and the 1991 Ceasefire"

Yes and apparently we are the only ones that were bound to any agreement. A little one sided aren't we, there are usually two parts to an agreement, why is it that in your mind we were the only ones bound by it? And try and remember that saddam was the aggressor and the loser, and so it was up to him to try to placate the winning side, not the other way around.

"Screw justice, right and wrong"

Try and try as you might you can not spin this can you?Time ran out on saddam, and you pout, pout.Should we have allowed him to through more gas and an already raging fire, pout, pout. Try and look at the world without your anti-American colored glasses just for an hour bruno, it will do wonders for your ulcers.

Strykerdad, do you know what happened to the native people of Cuba when the spanish got there, they killed every one, wiped them all out. The island just wasn't big enough for them both. Not exactly our finest moment.

So long, 'mad' Tom, you just got smoked. You are unable to address the facts. You are unaware of the contents of the 1991 Ceasefire.

I mean, this line "And try and remember that saddam was the aggressor and the loser, and so it was up to him to try to placate the winning side, not the other way around." shows that you have NO CLUE about the actual provisions of the 1991 CF. Cheers.

"Those stupid Shi'a they don't know there Iraqi and a soon as they get the chance there going to run to Iran. Something needs to be done to keep those stupid good for nothing shi'a in line."

You have to know that you can't judge the degree of loyality to one homeland from his sect or ethnicity. There are as many patriots Sheis as Sunnis especially the Arab Sheis (they are real Iraqis according to my classification). Yes there are Sheis from Iranian roots who have loyality only to Iran, but those are the exceptions not the rules.

"TT you really should read carefully the tings your allies write about your countrymen, read carefully. with allies like that you don't need enemies."

Pardon my ignorance! who are those allies you are talking about? please explain.

"You have to know that you can't judge the degree of loyality to one homeland from his sect or ethnicity. There are as many patriots Sheis as Sunnis especially the Arab Sheis (they are real Iraqis according to my classification). Yes there are Sheis from Iranian roots who have loyality only to Iran, but those are the exceptions not the rules.

sorry my rant was a sarcastic translation of what bruno and johninnz are really saying, even if they do not use those words exactly, It is not a notion of Iraqis that I hold but the one that they express, and they are the allies I was referring too.

Interesting story about another Iraqi girl with a whole different perspective. It involves the Stryker Brigade and the beginning of the story can be found on Yon's site as he was part of the effort as well.

Little Rhma tickled pink after successful heart surgery By Sandra Jontz, Stars and StripesMideast edition, Friday, October 14, 2005Little Rhma has a new color about her.

Pink.

Because of a congenital heart defect, the tiny 5-year-old Iraqi girl hasn’t had that healthy glow that comes with well-oxygenated blood circulating through the body.

But on Monday, Rhma underwent heart surgery in Albuquerque that saved her life and put her in the pink.

“She no longer is the color of a blueberry!” exclaimed Debbie O’Rourke, president of the New Mexico chapter of Healing the Children, a nonprofit organization that played a role in a huge mission that started with a few motivated infantry soldiers and progressed to involving Healing the Children, U.S. Embassy staffs, Capitol Hill, and a hospital and surgeons who donated to the life-saving effort.

Rhma was born with two holes between the upper and lower chambers of her heart, and a ventricle that fails to properly circulate her blood.

Her lips had a bluish tint, and the tips of her hands and feet were swollen and turned purplish-blue, a symptom called “clubbing” caused by poor blood circulation, explained Dr. (Maj.) Dave Brown, surgeon for 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment, who first examined Rhma in May.

If the problem is left untreated, her limbs might have been amputated, and the pressure imbalance eventually would have worn out her heart.

Brown and Capt. Paul Carron, Company C commander, were instrumental in making the right connections that got Rhma from Mosul to Baghdad, then to the U.S. Embassy in Jordan and on to the U.S. for treatment. Her last name is not being published because her family fears retaliation for accepting help from Americans.

It all started during a late-night raid on May 20 in which “Deuce-Four” soldiers Pfc. Matthew Nolan and Spc. Matthew English came across the pale, frightened little girl with brown eyes as big as saucers. The Fort Lewis, Wash.-based battalion returned home last month after a year in Iraq.

Weak, malnourished and the size of a 2-year-old, Rhma arrived “in pretty bad shape,” said Dr. Carl Lagerstrom, the cardiac surgeon at Presbyterian Hospital in Albuquerque who performed Monday’s two-hour surgery.

“It’s amazing she’s still alive. Most children with her problem don’t live to be her age,” he said in a phone interview. “She’s a sickly little girl.”

But healing.

Lagerstrom said he took a graft from an artery and directed more blood flow to her lungs so that her blood gets more oxygen. She arrived with an oxygen saturation level, or the amount of oxygen in the blood system, of 40 percent. A healthy level is 100 percent.

Now, Rhma is measuring a saturation reading of about 80 percent, and she’s eating better, even though she’s not crazy about the hospital food, he laughed.

“She looks like a different child,” said Pam English, the mother of one of the “Deuce-Four” soldiers who discovered Rhma and also a pediatric intensive care nurse at Presbyterian. “Her mom just kept holding her hands, looking at her nail beds (nails) and smiling.”

It had been a long and arduous job getting Rhma to the States. Her paperwork was held up at the U.S. Embassy in Jordan for nearly a month. Involvement of staffers from Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., the only woman military veteran currently in Congress and the first Air Force Academy graduate in Congress, dislodged the bureaucratic red tape.

Healing the Children paid travel costs for Rhma and her mother, and paired the mother and child with an Arabic-speaking “foster family” in Albuquerque, O’Rourke said.

Healing the Children helps thousands of U.S. and foreign children, from supplying eye glasses to dental checks, funding co-pays for medication, and organizing surgeons and hospitals to donate services, such as heart surgery, she said.

Rhma will likely be out of the hospital in a week, and possibly on her way home in about two or three weeks, Lagerstrom said.

Thank you for voting this time. We hope you will also vote the next time,and have a majority that will ask us (the US) to leave.

best regardscb(ps -- I post very rarely. I reacll that before the last election when you were arguing about its illegitmacy and why you decided not to vote, I was trying to explain about starting points and iterations. Glad that progress has been made and you and your immediate family decided to vote this time.)

Unfortunately, Strykerdad, if you were successful only the survivors might benefit. And there are less of them with every passing day... But were you to leave immediately, there would be thousands fewer children who would need to benefit from your amazing generosity, just because they would not be (accidently, of course) shot and wounded by your brave troopers...

"For me, I'm totally satisfied with what I had before, as a female. The freedom I want is the one I lost thanks to your country.."

So it didn't bother you that Saddam killed 300,000 of your fellow citizens. It doesn't bother you when they dig up his mass graves all over the country. You think, "I am a Sunni, and Saddam didn't try to exterminate us. His sons didn't try to rape me as they did other women. I was doing fine, so fuck everybody else." Frankly, I find you disgusting.

"Can you immagine how many children could be helped if the US used only a tiny part of the billions the war in Iraq is costing, towards that end? "

We have sent billions to Egypt and Palestine, but they are still corrupt and oppressive regimes. They are still filled with Islamic hate mongers.

Think about Mugabe. He had a nation that was capable of feeding itself, but he screwed it up and now his country must be fed by the international community. How long can we compensate with money for despotic regimes. Liberals like to talk about the "root of the problem". If your only solution is to throw money at the problem, then you will never fix it at its root. The problems will only grow larger and require more charity every year.

"Perhaps his best answer might be "I am Iraqi."I find the way many US blog commenters have come to demonize all Sunni rather interesting.It seems to indicate a sort of compulsive desire to have someone to hate."

Now there is an idiotic assertion if I ever heard one. The brothers at Iraq the Model are all Sunni and the only people who hate them are liberals like yourself. Liberals simply cannot stomach anyone with a positive outlook for Iraq. The bottom line is that they are desperately hoping for our failure.

"Unfortunately, Strykerdad, if you were successful only the survivors might benefit. And there are less of them with every passing day... But were you to leave immediately, there would be thousands fewer children who would need to benefit from your amazing generosity, just because they would not be (accidently, of course) shot and wounded by your brave troopers... "

You live in a fantasy land. People are dying because the insugents cannot bear to have democracy in Iraq. Democracy will be the death of radical Islam. If the US leaves it will do absolutely nothing to curb the appetite of the insurgents to impose Sharia on Iraq and turn it into an Islamic prison. And majority of Iraqis will not stand by and allow the insane Islamists to take over their country. So the fight will continue regardless of our prescense. And the death toll may well be even worse. Look at Palestine. The Israelis pulled out and the followers of the religion of death are continuing to murder each other there.

Hurria said:"And how do you know what the "terrorists" fear and why they do what they do? You talk to them? "

Don't have to. They have their web sites and we have their correspondence. They have clearly stated that Islam and democracy are incompatible. They know only too well that if people are well eduacted and free to choose, that most will leave Islam behind. They know only too well that the entire ME depends on forcing Islam upon the population and on brainwashing them with Islamic dogma each and every day.

Faisal said"tilo i think that you live in a different world. Why is it that more and more individuals in the west are embracing islam? "

When you look at the number of people embracing Islam as a percentage of the whole, the number is tiny. And when you look at who those people are, you find out that most of them are women who have married a muslim.

What the Muslims never count is the number of people who quitely leave Islam in the west. And there are a lot of those.

I will ask you also faisal, do you think that Islam and democracy are compatible?

I think that you are really delusional. Neither should affect the other - It is irrelevant. Put it this way, they are two things running in parallel (unless you are delusional just like some terrorists or members of the bnp). It's like saying whether a house and a cat are compatible.

The other thing thilo is that i see more man converted to islam than women. were they married to muslim women?? no. Infact the figures I know is that the number of people who convert to islam due to marital relations is very low

Okay Faisal, let's deal with my illusions. Let's say that the government of Iraq decides to pass a law that says all domestic violence is illegal. No family member is permitted to hit any other family member, and if they do they will be placed in jail.

Omar and his wife get into an argument. Omar gets exasperated and smacks his wife in the mouth. Omars wife calls the police and has him arrested. Omar gets taken in front of a judge and he quotes verse 4,34 of the Quran to the judge.

"[4:34] Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All-high, All-great."

Then Omar tells the judge that he is exercising the rights God has given him in the Quran and that no law made by man can deny him of those rights.

So what does the judge do Faisal?

"The other thing thilo is that i see more man converted to islam than women. were they married to muslim women?? no. Infact the figures I know is that the number of people who convert to islam due to marital relations is very low"